WAR On WOMEN By Republicans

[edthecynic]

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

Do you have a link to prove your contention that all those people who no longer collect benefits and are not looking for work are retiring boomers?

NOTE: Wishful thinking in support of your little tin god is not proof. Well, it proves you're a moron.

Did you require proof from CNS that the 282,000 women who left the labor force last month were discouraged workers?
Obviously not!
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

275,000 discouraged women May.
291,000 discouraged women June.

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

I see you also like to PARSE your words like good subversives do when YOU know perfectly well with LESS people being counted as they fall INTO LIMBO and not counted for anything, that the rate goes down, and MORE WOMAN lose their employment status.... So very Democrat of you!

As my link showed the liars at CNS exaggerated an increase of 16,000 discouraged women in June into a 282,000 increase.
So very CON$ervoFascist of them!

 

[Vigilante]

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

I see you also like to PARSE your words like good subversives do when YOU know perfectly well with LESS people being counted as they fall INTO LIMBO and not counted for anything, that the rate goes down, and MORE WOMAN lose their employment status.... So very Democrat of you!

I see you also LIED about boomer retiring! Please Ed, continue to make yourself look dumber than you are!

Boomers working to stay employed during golden years

That is just a bullshit survey of what Boomers think they might do, what they actually do is quite different. Actual retirement data show differently, 75% of Boomers retire as soon as eligible at 62 years old, and 82% of Boomers retire by age 65.

Ideation Insurance Group
Approximately 3 out of 4 Americans start claiming Social Security benefits the moment they are eligible at age 62.

Not letting go: Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

Yes, I understand EddyBoy, everything I post is just bullshit, but yours, as any good subversive knows, is nothing but the truth, and beyond reproach!....

The entertainment with this moron is almost incomparable....almost!

BTW, we are supposed to believe the AARP doesn't have a vested interest in statistics?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328338/aarp-made-28-billion-obamacare-avik-roy

 

[edthecynic]

I see you also like to PARSE your words like good subversives do when YOU know perfectly well with LESS people being counted as they fall INTO LIMBO and not counted for anything, that the rate goes down, and MORE WOMAN lose their employment status.... So very Democrat of you!

I see you also LIED about boomer retiring! Please Ed, continue to make yourself look dumber than you are!

Boomers working to stay employed during golden years

That is just a bullshit survey of what Boomers think they might do, what they actually do is quite different. Actual retirement data show differently, 75% of Boomers retire as soon as eligible at 62 years old, and 82% of Boomers retire by age 65.

Ideation Insurance Group
Approximately 3 out of 4 Americans start claiming Social Security benefits the moment they are eligible at age 62.

Not letting go: Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

Yes, I understand EddyBoy, everything I post is just bullshit, but yours, as any good subversive knows, is nothing but the truth, and beyond reproach!....

The entertainment with this moron is almost incomparable....almost!

BTW, we are supposed to believe the AARP doesn't have a vested interest in statistics?

AARP Made $2.8 Billion off of Obamacare | National Review Online

National Review, more pathological liars. Obama didn't cut Medicare Advantage benefits, that was just a Bishop Willard lie. BTW, Lyin 'Ryan's budget made the same dollar cuts to Medicare Advantage, but didn't get any cost savings from the insurance companies to offset it so benefits could stay the same. Instead Lyin' Ryan diverted the cuts to tax cuts for the rich.

From your link:

"According to an analysis by Representatives Wally Herger (R., Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R., Wash.), Obamacare’s cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, by driving seniors out of that program and back into traditional Medicare, could earn AARP over $1 billion over the next ten years, because AARP makes nearly half a billion dollars per year collecting royalties from supplemental Medigap policies sold by private insurers. Those Medigap policies are primarily sold to seniors in the traditional, government-run Medicare program"

Well, no one was "driven out of Medicare Advantage" into Medigap, Medicare Advantage actually grew!!!! Your sources are caught lying again, but you will still use them, and they know it, because they tell you the lies you want to hear!

The fact is Medicare Advantage enrollment has GROWN every year since Obamacare was passed and all the Right can do is lie about it.

 

[Vigilante]

That is just a bullshit survey of what Boomers think they might do, what they actually do is quite different. Actual retirement data show differently, 75% of Boomers retire as soon as eligible at 62 years old, and 82% of Boomers retire by age 65.

Ideation Insurance Group
Approximately 3 out of 4 Americans start claiming Social Security benefits the moment they are eligible at age 62.

Not letting go: Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

Yes, I understand EddyBoy, everything I post is just bullshit, but yours, as any good subversive knows, is nothing but the truth, and beyond reproach!....

The entertainment with this moron is almost incomparable....almost!

BTW, we are supposed to believe the AARP doesn't have a vested interest in statistics?

AARP Made $2.8 Billion off of Obamacare | National Review Online

National Review, more pathological liars. Obama didn't cut Medicare Advantage benefits, that was just a Bishop Willard lie. BTW, Lyin 'Ryan's budget made the same dollar cuts to Medicare Advantage, but didn't get any cost savings from the insurance companies to offset it so benefits could stay the same. Instead Lyin' Ryan diverted the cuts to tax cuts for the rich.

From your link:

"According to an analysis by Representatives Wally Herger (R., Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R., Wash.), Obamacare’s cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, by driving seniors out of that program and back into traditional Medicare, could earn AARP over $1 billion over the next ten years, because AARP makes nearly half a billion dollars per year collecting royalties from supplemental Medigap policies sold by private insurers. Those Medigap policies are primarily sold to seniors in the traditional, government-run Medicare program"

Well, no one was "driven out of Medicare Advantage" into Medigap, Medicare Advantage actually grew!!!! Your sources are caught lying again, but you will still use them, and they know it, because they tell you the lies you want to hear!

The fact is Medicare Advantage enrollment has GROWN every year since Obamacare was passed and all the Right can do is lie about it.

Isn't it funny that everything I post is done by "pathological liars", but this asshole expects us to believe everything he posts from pathological liars.... Interesting how that works for subversives!

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, I understand EddyBoy, everything I post is just bullshit, but yours, as any good subversive knows, is nothing but the truth, and beyond reproach!....

The entertainment with this moron is almost incomparable....almost!

BTW, we are supposed to believe the AARP doesn't have a vested interest in statistics?

AARP Made $2.8 Billion off of Obamacare | National Review Online

National Review, more pathological liars. Obama didn't cut Medicare Advantage benefits, that was just a Bishop Willard lie. BTW, Lyin 'Ryan's budget made the same dollar cuts to Medicare Advantage, but didn't get any cost savings from the insurance companies to offset it so benefits could stay the same. Instead Lyin' Ryan diverted the cuts to tax cuts for the rich.

From your link:

"According to an analysis by Representatives Wally Herger (R., Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R., Wash.), Obamacare’s cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, by driving seniors out of that program and back into traditional Medicare, could earn AARP over $1 billion over the next ten years, because AARP makes nearly half a billion dollars per year collecting royalties from supplemental Medigap policies sold by private insurers. Those Medigap policies are primarily sold to seniors in the traditional, government-run Medicare program"

Well, no one was "driven out of Medicare Advantage" into Medigap, Medicare Advantage actually grew!!!! Your sources are caught lying again, but you will still use them, and they know it, because they tell you the lies you want to hear!

The fact is Medicare Advantage enrollment has GROWN every year since Obamacare was passed and all the Right can do is lie about it.

Isn't it funny that everything I post is done by "pathological liars", but this asshole expects us to believe everything he posts from pathological liars.... Interesting how that works for subversives!

The difference is your pathological liars have no real facts to back up their claims. For example, you post a photo that claims there are more women "UNEMPLOYED" now then when Obama took office. I posted the actual BLS employment numbers but your source didn't use employment numbers and used the LPR, which is affected by demographics like birth rates, retirement rates, immigration etc., and therefore is practically worthless for evaluating employment and unemployment. Your source knew you would be too stupid to know employment numbers give you the best picture of employment.

 

[Vigilante]

National Review, more pathological liars. Obama didn't cut Medicare Advantage benefits, that was just a Bishop Willard lie. BTW, Lyin 'Ryan's budget made the same dollar cuts to Medicare Advantage, but didn't get any cost savings from the insurance companies to offset it so benefits could stay the same. Instead Lyin' Ryan diverted the cuts to tax cuts for the rich.

From your link:

"According to an analysis by Representatives Wally Herger (R., Calif.) and Dave Reichert (R., Wash.), Obamacare’s cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, by driving seniors out of that program and back into traditional Medicare, could earn AARP over $1 billion over the next ten years, because AARP makes nearly half a billion dollars per year collecting royalties from supplemental Medigap policies sold by private insurers. Those Medigap policies are primarily sold to seniors in the traditional, government-run Medicare program"

Well, no one was "driven out of Medicare Advantage" into Medigap, Medicare Advantage actually grew!!!! Your sources are caught lying again, but you will still use them, and they know it, because they tell you the lies you want to hear!

The fact is Medicare Advantage enrollment has GROWN every year since Obamacare was passed and all the Right can do is lie about it.

Isn't it funny that everything I post is done by "pathological liars", but this asshole expects us to believe everything he posts from pathological liars.... Interesting how that works for subversives!

The difference is your pathological liars have no real facts to back up their claims. For example, you post a photo that claims there are more women "UNEMPLOYED" now then when Obama took office. I posted the actual BLS employment numbers but your source didn't use employment numbers and used the LPR, which is affected by demographics like birth rates, retirement rates, immigration etc., and therefore is practically worthless for evaluating employment and unemployment. Your source knew you would be too stupid to know employment numbers give you the best picture of employment.

No they don't, as we see the unemployment rate knocked down to 6.1% yet those that fell off the unemployment numbers after unemployment runs out is far greater but isn't taken into consideration!

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama | InvestmentWatch

That headline is not a misprint. The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office.

I imagine that this is also by a bunch of "pathological liars"!....

 

[edthecynic]

Isn't it funny that everything I post is done by "pathological liars", but this asshole expects us to believe everything he posts from pathological liars.... Interesting how that works for subversives!

The difference is your pathological liars have no real facts to back up their claims. For example, you post a photo that claims there are more women "UNEMPLOYED" now then when Obama took office. I posted the actual BLS employment numbers but your source didn't use employment numbers and used the LPR, which is affected by demographics like birth rates, retirement rates, immigration etc., and therefore is practically worthless for evaluating employment and unemployment. Your source knew you would be too stupid to know employment numbers give you the best picture of employment.

No they don't, as we see the unemployment rate knocked down to 6.1% yet those that fell off the unemployment numbers after unemployment runs out is far greater but isn't taken into consideration!

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama | InvestmentWatch

That headline is not a misprint. The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office.

I imagine that this is also by a bunch of "pathological liars"!....

Well, it is a perfectly meaningless stat for anyone who isn't an easily misled fool. As pointed out, "not in the labor force," is a useless stat that is affected by many non-economic demographic factors like stay at home moms, retirees, students over 16 years old, etc., is what the LPR is based on which is why the LPR and by extension the "not in labor force" are completely worthless employment indicators.

Now during the Bush Regime, the Right knew this and never quoted the stats you just used while telling us how great the Bush economy was. But let's look at them now.

Not in labor force was 71 million plus 6 million unemployed, a total of 77 million. When Bush left there were 81 million not in labor force and 12 million unemployed for a total of 93 million, an increase of 16 million, and Bush didn't have Boomers retiring!!!!

Obama's 10 million looks a lot better than Bush's 16 million!!!
Of course, now you will suddenly admit it is a worthless comparison!

 

[Vigilante]

The difference is your pathological liars have no real facts to back up their claims. For example, you post a photo that claims there are more women "UNEMPLOYED" now then when Obama took office. I posted the actual BLS employment numbers but your source didn't use employment numbers and used the LPR, which is affected by demographics like birth rates, retirement rates, immigration etc., and therefore is practically worthless for evaluating employment and unemployment. Your source knew you would be too stupid to know employment numbers give you the best picture of employment.

No they don't, as we see the unemployment rate knocked down to 6.1% yet those that fell off the unemployment numbers after unemployment runs out is far greater but isn't taken into consideration!

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama | InvestmentWatch

That headline is not a misprint. The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office.

I imagine that this is also by a bunch of "pathological liars"!....

Well, it is a perfectly meaningless stat for anyone who isn't an easily misled fool. As pointed out, "not in the labor force," is a useless stat that is affected by many non-economic demographic factors like stay at home moms, retirees, students over 16 years old, etc., is what the LPR is based on which is why the LPR and by extension the "not in labor force" are completely worthless employment indicators.

Now during the Bush Regime, the Right knew this and never quoted the stats you just used while telling us how great the Bush economy was. But let's look at them now.

Not in labor force was 71 million plus 6 million unemployed, a total of 77 million. When Bush left there were 81 million not in labor force and 12 million unemployed for a total of 93 million, an increase of 16 million, and Bush didn't have Boomers retiring!!!!

Obama's 10 million looks a lot better than Bush's 16 million!!!
Of course, now you will suddenly admit it is a worthless comparison!

Seems that if it doesn't fit into your bullshit, it's from a bunch of "pathological liars"!.... BUT when you realize we live in the REAL WORLD, and not one manipulated by subversives it comes off as...In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million....Now Ed the Idiot how many of those are woman that are not employed compared to who was employed when your Mess...iah took office? Lord, this is fun!

 

[edthecynic]

No they don't, as we see the unemployment rate knocked down to 6.1% yet those that fell off the unemployment numbers after unemployment runs out is far greater but isn't taken into consideration!

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama

The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By Almost 10 Million Under Obama | InvestmentWatch

That headline is not a misprint. The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office.

I imagine that this is also by a bunch of "pathological liars"!....

Well, it is a perfectly meaningless stat for anyone who isn't an easily misled fool. As pointed out, "not in the labor force," is a useless stat that is affected by many non-economic demographic factors like stay at home moms, retirees, students over 16 years old, etc., is what the LPR is based on which is why the LPR and by extension the "not in labor force" are completely worthless employment indicators.

Now during the Bush Regime, the Right knew this and never quoted the stats you just used while telling us how great the Bush economy was. But let's look at them now.

Not in labor force was 71 million plus 6 million unemployed, a total of 77 million. When Bush left there were 81 million not in labor force and 12 million unemployed for a total of 93 million, an increase of 16 million, and Bush didn't have Boomers retiring!!!!

Obama's 10 million looks a lot better than Bush's 16 million!!!
Of course, now you will suddenly admit it is a worthless comparison!

Seems that if it doesn't fit into your bullshit, it's from a bunch of "pathological liars"!.... BUT when you realize we live in the REAL WORLD, and not one manipulated by subversives it comes off as...In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million....Now Ed the Idiot how many of those are woman that are not employed compared to who was employed when your Mess...iah took office? Lord, this is fun!

There are still 1.6 million more women employed and 733,000 less women unemployed now then when Obama took office.

 

[daveman]

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

Do you have a link to prove your contention that all those people who no longer collect benefits and are not looking for work are retiring boomers?

NOTE: Wishful thinking in support of your little tin god is not proof. Well, it proves you're a moron.

Did you require proof from CNS that the 282,000 women who left the labor force last month were discouraged workers?
Obviously not!
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

275,000 discouraged women May.
291,000 discouraged women June.

Nothing in there about retiring boomers.

You fail. Again. Constantly.

 

[Vigilante]

Well, it is a perfectly meaningless stat for anyone who isn't an easily misled fool. As pointed out, "not in the labor force," is a useless stat that is affected by many non-economic demographic factors like stay at home moms, retirees, students over 16 years old, etc., is what the LPR is based on which is why the LPR and by extension the "not in labor force" are completely worthless employment indicators.

Now during the Bush Regime, the Right knew this and never quoted the stats you just used while telling us how great the Bush economy was. But let's look at them now.

Not in labor force was 71 million plus 6 million unemployed, a total of 77 million. When Bush left there were 81 million not in labor force and 12 million unemployed for a total of 93 million, an increase of 16 million, and Bush didn't have Boomers retiring!!!!

Obama's 10 million looks a lot better than Bush's 16 million!!!
Of course, now you will suddenly admit it is a worthless comparison!

Seems that if it doesn't fit into your bullshit, it's from a bunch of "pathological liars"!.... BUT when you realize we live in the REAL WORLD, and not one manipulated by subversives it comes off as...In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million....Now Ed the Idiot how many of those are woman that are not employed compared to who was employed when your Mess...iah took office? Lord, this is fun!

There are still 1.6 million more women employed and 733,000 less women unemployed now then when Obama took office.

And out of the almost 10 MILLION less workers (than in 2009) NOT COUNTED, how many are woman?.... But please continue, this is getting better!

 

[driveby]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I'm not blinded by anything. Keep your God laws off my body including reproductive health, and your nose out of my business, equal pay for equal work and we will get along fine.

I don't give a flying rats ass about "your" reproductive health

Apparently you are blinded by your "reproductive health" issue

Well, then you don't grasp the War on Women. Do ya?

It doesn't exist, damn you're dense..........

 

[Synthaholic]

That was a boy killed in the accident.

Dumbass.

That was part of the Republican War On Children.

Good Gaea, you're stupid.

It's ongoing: witness their reaction to children coming across the border. Witness all the cuts to children's health, education, nutrition, etc.

Conservatives only care about children until they are born.

 

[Vigilante]

I don't give a flying rats ass about "your" reproductive health

Apparently you are blinded by your "reproductive health" issue

Well, then you don't grasp the War on Women. Do ya?

It doesn't exist, damn you're dense..........

But Driveby...IT DOES EXIST and therefore the COVERUP of blaming Republicans when there is ample PROOF it is by the Democrats and specifically the obomanation!

Obama White House Hypocritically Pays Women Less Than Men

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama White House Hypocritically Pays Women Less Than Men - Investors.com

 

[Vigilante]

That was part of the Republican War On Children.

Good Gaea, you're stupid.

It's ongoing: witness their reaction to children coming across the border. Witness all the cuts to children's health, education, nutrition, etc.

Conservatives only care about children until they are born.

Come on alcoholic, we ALL KNOW that what YOU and the rest of the pond scum call cuts is simply NOT AS BIG AN INCREASE AS WANTED BY YOU SUBVERSIVES, BUT STILL AN INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR!!!

How many times are you brain dead fools going to try this shit, as there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A CUT FROM PREVIOUS BUDGETS! Fucking unbelievable they still try this LIE!!!....But please continue with your rants as this one has been exposed AGAIN!

 

[edthecynic]

Do you have a link to prove your contention that all those people who no longer collect benefits and are not looking for work are retiring boomers?

NOTE: Wishful thinking in support of your little tin god is not proof. Well, it proves you're a moron.

Did you require proof from CNS that the 282,000 women who left the labor force last month were discouraged workers?
Obviously not!
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

275,000 discouraged women May.
291,000 discouraged women June.

Nothing in there about retiring boomers.

You fail. Again. Constantly.

It does require a little arithmetic. Only 16,000 of CNS's 282,000 women left the workforce because they were discouraged. The rest are Retirees, stay at home moms, disabled, students over 16, etc. IOW, women who don't want a job.

 

[edthecynic]

Seems that if it doesn't fit into your bullshit, it's from a bunch of "pathological liars"!.... BUT when you realize we live in the REAL WORLD, and not one manipulated by subversives it comes off as...In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million....Now Ed the Idiot how many of those are woman that are not employed compared to who was employed when your Mess...iah took office? Lord, this is fun!

There are still 1.6 million more women employed and 733,000 less women unemployed now then when Obama took office.

And out of the almost 10 MILLION less workers (than in 2009) NOT COUNTED, how many are woman?.... But please continue, this is getting better!

Of Bush's not counted women 7.1 million.
Obama's not counted women 4.8 million.

No matter how you slice it, the GOP hate women more than Obama.

 

[Synthaholic]

Then they really aren't Republican are they?

They are married to Republican men, and usually vote with their husbands.

Not this November. It's one of the keys to Democratic victory. Along with Hispanics, college-age, Blacks, and single women.

And sane Republicans who are tired of know-nothing cavemen running their party.

Ahh, yes. The "Women are dumb pieces of ass who just blindly do what their men tell them to" School of Respecting Women. Just heartwarming. We couldn't ever POSSIBLY believe that women decided - all on their own, like they have BRAINS or something! - that you're just a sack of shit they don't agree with (or want to date), right?

Who said that? You're such a fucking drama queen.

Republican men tend to have like-minded wives. And politics is a component of compatibility.

 

[Vigilante]

There are still 1.6 million more women employed and 733,000 less women unemployed now then when Obama took office.

And out of the almost 10 MILLION less workers (than in 2009) NOT COUNTED, how many are woman?.... But please continue, this is getting better!

Of Bush's not counted women 7.1 million.
Obama's not counted women 4.8 million.

No matter how you slice it, the GOP hate women more than Obama.

Care to show us the DATES and links to your information as OBUMA OWNS it as of Jan. 21, 2009!

And does this mean that OBUMA REALLY has a war against woman...well I believe this PROVES Obuma treats women like shit!
Obama White House Hypocritically Pays Women Less Than Men

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama White House Hypocritically Pays Women Less Than Men - Investors.com

 

[Peach]

Good Gaea, you're stupid.

It's ongoing: witness their reaction to children coming across the border. Witness all the cuts to children's health, education, nutrition, etc.

Conservatives only care about children until they are born.

Come on alcoholic, we ALL KNOW that what YOU and the rest of the pond scum call cuts is simply NOT AS BIG AN INCREASE AS WANTED BY YOU SUBVERSIVES, BUT STILL AN INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR!!!

How many times are you brain dead fools going to try this shit, as there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A CUT FROM PREVIOUS BUDGETS! Fucking unbelievable they still try this LIE!!!....But please continue with your rants as this one has been exposed AGAIN!

Picture or you do not exist.