Today 8:18 am
Excellent point ROG62...ROG62 » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Agreed…intangible numbers equate to specious claims…
In the early 1950s, as many as 96% of prime working-age American men, who were between the ages of 25 and 54, were working full or part-time, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of March, about 86% of working-age men were employed, and this cohort's employment rate has lagged behind many developed countries in recent years, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found...
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-men- ... ity-2024-4
put these lazy *** **** to work to fill the void…
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.