You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

You really have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you do some research before you open your mouth to say such idiotic and misinformed things (they apparently created 818,000 fake jobs and they got caught)

BLS collects, calculates, analyzes, and publishes data essential to the public, employers, researchers, and government organizations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the U.S. economy to support public and private decision making.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects information from employers and those employers do not always report things correctly. Once a year they review all the monthly reports and they adjust the numbers to what the full information actually is. There have years where they have shown an increase over what the monthly numbers were. Does that mean that the government underreported the numbers "on purpose"?

Apart from the fact that you are misinformed because you did no research, it seems you also have no common sense, These numbers are not attached in any way to the government, other than reporting of government employees, which is a small number.

Get informed
willfully stupid!!!!
 
anyone who uses phrases like trickle down, is too stupid to know how taxes work
You don't have a clue about taxes or how supply-side economics serves the wealthy at the expense of the working class. The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

Dit-PP1XcAEYrgs.jpg


trickle-down-768x882.jpg


 
You don't have a clue about taxes or how supply-side economics serves the wealthy at the expense of the working class. The trickle-down doesn't trickle.


again, you have no idea how it works. You just proved it for everyone. Why would I waste my time to provide you with the facts you can't comprehend? You remain ignorant because you are a demofk with no will to learn.

Here, I'll prove my point, who provides most private jobs?
 
again, you have no idea how it works. You just proved it for everyone. Why would I waste my time to provide you with the facts you can't comprehend? You remain ignorant because you are a demofk with no will to learn.
You're a coward who can't defend his position with a rational, evidence-supported argument in a political debate forum. All you can do is condescendingly claim the other person is too stupid to debate you, avoiding having to defend your claims. If what I said is fake news or incorrect as you've claimed, then present your evidence. You refuse to do that because you're a coward who is unable to defend his position. You're the one who is clearly dishonest and stupid.

I respond to your posts not for your sake but for the sake of others who are genuinely interested in the truth. The fact that you're a shithead doesn't stop me from responding to your posts, because my time and effort isn't for you, but for others.
 
Last edited:
hahahaahahahahahahaha. can't make it up. Came from Congress, authorization. Do you know what that actually means?

LOL

So the answer to my question is, "no," you can't read English...

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...
 
Ignoring the facts as usual.

Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.
The doctor is clearly for you. Trump in that video clearly states he doesn't like those who are captured by the enemy. Duh.

I'm a socialist, but I still respect John McCain's courage and commitment in defending his country. I don't agree with the Vietnam war, nor with much of McCain's politics, but I respect his courage and commitment, his sacrifice for our country. He doesn't have to be a socialist for me to value his service and humanity.

Trump said that he doesn't like our men and women in uniform who are captured by the enemy in combat. How more stupid and crazy could this man be? The person who needs a psychiatrist is clearly him and you for defending him on this issue.
 
Fucking idiot. ^^^
That's all you right-wing Republicans can do, insult others. You can't defend anything you believe in with a rational, fact-filled argument, you just call people stupid and walk away thinking you've won something.
 
Ignoring the facts as usual.

Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.
All the ranting about crowd sizes is normal? What do crowd sizes have anything to do with running the nation? How do crowd sizes make the economy better? help with the border? etc?

The worst part is that he doesn't just mention crowd sizes but he rants about them over and over again. Is crowd sizes one of your concerns?
 
Congress. They left determination to invade up to Bush's discretion. Can't you read English?
Not entirely true. All based upon unchallenged interpretation of COTUS.

When the Bush administration invaded Iraq, it relied at least as much on what President Bush claimed was his inherent “authority as Commander in Chief” as it did on the Iraq War AUMF. In announcing the invasion, President Bush said he was acting “pursuant” to his constitutional authority and only “consistent” with Congress’s enactment.

The assertion was striking. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to create and regulate the military. Although the Constitution vests the president with an inherent authority to “repel sudden attacks” on U.S. territory and persons, nothing in its text or design suggests that a president may unilaterally initiate hostilities.

The Bush administration’s broad reading of constitutional authority, however, was no anomaly; Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have similarly encroached on Congress’s war powers. President Obama cited his constitutional authority, not an AUMF, as the original basis for hostilities against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. President Trump cited his constitutional authority, in addition to the Iraq War AUMF, as legal grounds for the 2020 strike on General Soleimani. And President Biden has contended that congressional authorization is not needed for his administration’s tit-for-tat hostilities against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, which he claims fall within his power to defend U.S. forces and foreign partners.


 
Ahhh. This is from Politicrap. Just watched a YouTube video yesterday showing things that they labeled True or False, and then would show the actual facts. Typically in live video from political figures, etc. Maybe it was brought up already, but didn't feel like going through 45 pages that already negated the OPs post. I lived through much of those times, and know it is crap statistics.
 
That's all you right-wing Republicans can do, insult others. You can't defend anything you believe in with a rational, fact-filled argument, you just call people stupid and walk away thinking you've won something.
Oh look, another fucking idiot. ^^^
 
Not entirely true. All based upon unchallenged interpretation of COTUS.

When the Bush administration invaded Iraq, it relied at least as much on what President Bush claimed was his inherent “authority as Commander in Chief” as it did on the Iraq War AUMF. In announcing the invasion, President Bush said he was acting “pursuant” to his constitutional authority and only “consistent” with Congress’s enactment.

The assertion was striking. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to create and regulate the military. Although the Constitution vests the president with an inherent authority to “repel sudden attacks” on U.S. territory and persons, nothing in its text or design suggests that a president may unilaterally initiate hostilities.

The Bush administration’s broad reading of constitutional authority, however, was no anomaly; Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have similarly encroached on Congress’s war powers. President Obama cited his constitutional authority, not an AUMF, as the original basis for hostilities against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. President Trump cited his constitutional authority, in addition to the Iraq War AUMF, as legal grounds for the 2020 strike on General Soleimani. And President Biden has contended that congressional authorization is not needed for his administration’s tit-for-tat hostilities against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, which he claims fall within his power to defend U.S. forces and foreign partners.



Congress did not declare war. They left that up to Bush. And when Bush asked Congress for that authorization, he was clear it didn't mean it would result in war...

”Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” ~ George Bush
 

Forum List

Back
Top