Liberal Forum

FJB » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

27 minutes ago

Sad BV always has to put stipulations on answering a simple question. Typical **** chink cocksucking liberal shill

**** for brains CUPCAKE,  @Blackvegetable  , thinks because he answered ONE question, he is some hero to the universe. AND that he can make some vapid claim that "I ansewer questions".

The FACTS are, until you badger the piece of **** at MINIMUM 341 times with the SAME QUESTION, the sackless wonder keeps running and demanding conditions. 

The reason- he KNOWS that by answering the first time, HIS *** is going to get handed back to him on a bloody pike!!

         

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Yes or no.

NO QUESTIONS, cupcake!!

YOUR RULE, so abide by it!!

Look under your bed. You MIGHT find your ONIONS THERE, pumpkin!! Or did your ex take them back to Brasil with her. Yeah, that sounds like the FACTS on that one.

FJB » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

Sad BV always has to put stipulations on answering a simple question. Typical **** chink cocksucking liberal shill

Exactly why his ex left him... her hinting that she wanted to ****, would turn into the question game. 




 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:50 pm

Because it isn't "obvious", in fact it isn't - at all.

The study estimated that between 51,000 and 297,000 of the lost jobs would have been held by American-born workers, as businesses that rely partly on immigrant workers scaled back operations for everyone, including US-born employees.

In the 86 cities that saw the sharpest rise in ICE arrests, they found roughly 13 lost jobs associated with each excess arrest. Industries that traditionally employ a large share of undocumented migrants, like construction, saw the biggest impact. But employment in sectors like arts and entertainment, where few immigrants work, also fell sharply. The authors said that’s because businesses cut staff as people stop going out when ICE raids dominate the news.

“Enforcement at this scale and speed — visible, shocking, designed to produce fear beyond the directly targeted population — destroys jobs, disrupts businesses that Americans own and run, and depresses the local economies in which Americans live and work,” Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal and Paul Beach wrote in the report.

Oh, you mean it's NOT obvious to you that a business owner would seek to replace a worker that's gone, whether that's due to the employee quitting, retiring, dying, or being deported?  

With such stupidity as you've detailed, any business that an ignorant dope like you tried to start would undoubtedly fail within days!

Here's what you liberal idiots fail to understand.
If a worker gets deported, there is no guarantee that an employer would be able to find a replacement at the same rate of pay, nor should there be.  If it takes an additional $2 an hour to higher a replacement, then THAT is the adjusted cost of him doing business, and he's free to adjust HIS price to the market accordingly.  That increase shows up as INCREASED WAGES, which is a positive for the country as a whole.  Regardless of that rate of pay, a business owner WOULD NOT simply refuse to hire a replacement unless it was at the same salary of the illegal and choose instead to let his crops rot in the field or give up construction of a job he has contracted to build simply because it would cost him a few bucks more.  

And that's why your article is pure ****.  It's released like that by the far-left Global Economy and Development institute specifically because they KNOW how dumb and gullible you stupid liberals are and how easily they can manipulate you into whatever left-wing cause they want you to swallow.

Congratulations on being such a thoroughly malleable  puppet and a gullible sap!
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:50 pm

Zeets2 » Yesterday, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:38 pm

Where does your article say ANYTHING about the obvious increased number of job openings for legal American workers?
What are YOU reading that no one else is?

And why can't you explain your apparent belief that it DOES NOT mean that there are 668,000 jobs that now need to be filled by employers?

Because it isn't "obvious", in fact it isn't - at all.

The study estimated that between 51,000 and 297,000 of the lost jobs would have been held by American-born workers, as businesses that rely partly on immigrant workers scaled back operations for everyone, including US-born employees.


In the 86 cities that saw the sharpest rise in ICE arrests, they found roughly 13 lost jobs associated with each excess arrest. Industries that traditionally employ a large share of undocumented migrants, like construction, saw the biggest impact. But employment in sectors like arts and entertainment, where few immigrants work, also fell sharply. The authors said that’s because businesses cut staff as people stop going out when ICE raids dominate the news.

“Enforcement at this scale and speed — visible, shocking, designed to produce fear beyond the directly targeted population — destroys jobs, disrupts businesses that Americans own and run, and depresses the local economies in which Americans live and work,” Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal and Paul Beach wrote in the report.
 

 

BV… you just proved my point.The study literally says the job losses were localized ripple effects in 86 metro areas — not national totals.The 51,000–297,000 number is the estimate of how many of those localized lost jobs were held by U.S.-born workers. That’s not a national job‑loss figure. That’s not a national economic report. And it sure as hell isn’t comparable to nationwide job creation. You’re mixing up a regional impact study with national employment data. 

MR-7 » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

BV… you just proved my point.The study literally says the job losses were localized ripple effects in 86 metro areas — not national totals.The 51,000–297,000 number is the estimate of how many of those localized lost jobs were held by U.S.-born workers. That’s not a national job‑loss figure. That’s not a national economic report. And it sure as hell isn’t comparable to nationwide job creation. You’re mixing up a regional impact study with national employment data.

AND, letting some far-left global authority organization influence him because they know how stupidly gullible he is!
 

Zeets2 » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

AND, letting some far-left global authority organization influence him because they know how stupidly gullible he is!

He surpassed cannonpointer...

JohnnyYou » Today, 2:21 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:21 am

Adn there are always guinea pigs or rabbits..  Goat and Lamb Farming is increasing here. Talk about DEI..

I need to eat more beans anyway.

There are passive solar heat freezers too.

The hunters here convert commercial airconditioners some how and make homemade meat lockers.

Interesting.

MR-7 » Today, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:18 am

BV… you just proved my point.The study literally says the job losses were localized ripple effects in 86 metro areas — not national totals.The 51,000–297,000 number is the estimate of how many of those localized lost jobs were held by U.S.-born workers. That’s not a national job‑loss figure. That’s not a national economic report. And it sure as hell isn’t comparable to nationwide job creation. You’re mixing up a regional impact study with national employment data. 

 

Who on Earth could possibly be this stupid?


What do you believe comprises a "national total"?

I pay to keep you alive....
 

Zeets2 » Today, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:41 am

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:50 pm

Because it isn't "obvious", in fact it isn't - at all.

The study estimated that between 51,000 and 297,000 of the lost jobs would have been held by American-born workers, as businesses that rely partly on immigrant workers scaled back operations for everyone, including US-born employees.

In the 86 cities that saw the sharpest rise in ICE arrests, they found roughly 13 lost jobs associated with each excess arrest. Industries that traditionally employ a large share of undocumented migrants, like construction, saw the biggest impact. But employment in sectors like arts and entertainment, where few immigrants work, also fell sharply. The authors said that’s because businesses cut staff as people stop going out when ICE raids dominate the news.

“Enforcement at this scale and speed — visible, shocking, designed to produce fear beyond the directly targeted population — destroys jobs, disrupts businesses that Americans own and run, and depresses the local economies in which Americans live and work,” Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal and Paul Beach wrote in the report.

Oh, you mean it's NOT obvious to you that a business owner would seek to replace a worker that's gone, whether that's due to the employee quitting, retiring, dying, or being deported?  

With such stupidity as you've detailed, any business that an ignorant dope like you tried to start would undoubtedly fail within days!

Here's what you liberal idiots fail to understand.
If a worker gets deported, there is no guarantee that an employer would be able to find a replacement at the same rate of pay, nor should there be.  If it takes an additional $2 an hour to higher a replacement, then THAT is the adjusted cost of him doing business, and he's free to adjust HIS price to the market accordingly.  That increase shows up as INCREASED WAGES, which is a positive for the country as a whole.  Regardless of that rate of pay, a business owner WOULD NOT simply refuse to hire a replacement unless it was at the same salary of the illegal and choose instead to let his crops rot in the field or give up construction of a job he has contracted to build simply because it would cost him a few bucks more.  

And that's why your article is pure ****.  It's released like that by the far-left Global Economy and Development institute specifically because they KNOW how dumb and gullible you stupid liberals are and how easily they can manipulate you into whatever left-wing cause they want you to swallow.

Congratulations on being such a thoroughly malleable  puppet and a gullible sap!
 

 

Well stated Zeets2. You understand business and math. 
 

MR-7 » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Well stated Zeets2. You understand business and math.

Ask Zeet about his FICO score...

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:06 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:06 am

Kind of like @ROG62

yet really like you…
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:57 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:57 am

Are these his words?

Now answer the question, fool

no clue, out of context edit guy…
 

MR-7 » Today, 5:53 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:53 am

He is so **** stupid ROG...

definitely the “master”…
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:39 pm

Who on Earth could possibly be this stupid?

What do you believe comprises a "national total"?

I pay to keep you alive....

A “national total” means all U.S. jobs, not jobs in 86 metro areas.There are roughly 390 metro areas in the United States.

So...86 ÷ 390 = 0.22

That means the study covers about 22% of U.S. metro areas. And that’s metro areas only...not rural counties, not the entire labor market, not the national economy.

Now compare that to the entire U.S. workforce:
Total U.S. jobs=158 million   

The study’s job‑loss estimate:51,000 to 297,000 jobs

Now do the math:

51,000 ÷ 158,000,000=0.00032 = 0.032%
297,000 ÷ 158,000,000 = 0.00188 = 0.188%

So, the study’s “job losses” represent:
0.03% to 0.19% of the national workforce...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁  
How **** stupid can one be...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...  

Slack Jaw, here’s the math you’re struggling with:
86 metro areas out of 390 is about 22% of U.S. metros. And the study’s job‑loss estimate (51k–297k) is between 0.03% and 0.19% of the national workforce. That’s not a ‘national total.’

Slack Jaw, this is basic division. If it’s still confusing, ask your ex...she clearly handled the math in that relationship.
 
You are one of the most ignorant **** on here. 
 

MR-7 » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

A “national total” means all U.S. jobs, not jobs in 86 metro areas.There are roughly 390 metro areas in the United States.

So...86 ÷ 390 = 0.22

That means the study covers about 22% of U.S. metro areas. And that’s metro areas only...not rural counties, not the entire labor market, not the national economy.

Now compare that to the entire U.S. workforce:
Total U.S. jobs=158 million   

The study’s job‑loss estimate:51,000 to 297,000 jobs

Now do the math:

51,000 ÷ 158,000,000=0.00032 = 0.032%
297,000 ÷ 158,000,000 = 0.00188 = 0.188%

So, the study’s “job losses” represent:
0.03% to 0.19% of the national workforce...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁  
How **** stupid can one be...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...  

Slack Jaw, here’s the math you’re struggling with:
86 metro areas out of 390 is about 22% of U.S. metros. And the study’s job‑loss estimate (51k–297k) is between 0.03% and 0.19% of the national workforce. That’s not a ‘national total.’

Slack Jaw, this is basic division. If it’s still confusing, ask your ex...she clearly handled the math in that relationship.
 
You are one of the most ignorant **** on here. 

@Blackvegetable @Johnny You @Squatchman 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...   

 

ROG62 » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

no clue, out of context edit guy…

Don't run your mouth, ****


viewtopic.php?p=2896458#p2896458

MR-7 » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

A “national total” means all U.S. jobs, not jobs in 86 metro areas.There are roughly 390 metro areas in the United States.

So...86 ÷ 390 = 0.22

That means the study covers about 22% of U.S. metro areas. And that’s metro areas only...not rural counties, not the entire labor market, not the national economy.

Now compare that to the entire U.S. workforce:
Total U.S. jobs=158 million   

The study’s job‑loss estimate:51,000 to 297,000 jobs

Now do the math:

51,000 ÷ 158,000,000=0.00032 = 0.032%
297,000 ÷ 158,000,000 = 0.00188 = 0.188%

So, the study’s “job losses” represent:
0.03% to 0.19% of the national workforce...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁  
How **** stupid can one be...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...  

Slack Jaw, here’s the math you’re struggling with:
86 metro areas out of 390 is about 22% of U.S. metros. And the study’s job‑loss estimate (51k–297k) is between 0.03% and 0.19% of the national workforce. That’s not a ‘national total.’

Slack Jaw, this is basic division. If it’s still confusing, ask your ex...she clearly handled the math in that relationship.
 
You are one of the most ignorant **** on here. 

Damn, are you **** stupid.

Blackvegetable » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

Ask Zeet about his FICO score...

Have one of your golliwogs ask him.

MR-7 » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

A “national total” means all U.S. jobs, not jobs in 86 metro areas.There are roughly 390 metro areas in the United States.

So...86 ÷ 390 = 0.22

That means the study covers about 22% of U.S. metro areas. And that’s metro areas only...not rural counties, not the entire labor market, not the national economy.

Now compare that to the entire U.S. workforce:
Total U.S. jobs=158 million   

The study’s job‑loss estimate:51,000 to 297,000 jobs

Now do the math:

51,000 ÷ 158,000,000=0.00032 = 0.032%
297,000 ÷ 158,000,000 = 0.00188 = 0.188%

So, the study’s “job losses” represent:
0.03% to 0.19% of the national workforce...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁  
How **** stupid can one be...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...  

Slack Jaw, here’s the math you’re struggling with:
86 metro areas out of 390 is about 22% of U.S. metros. And the study’s job‑loss estimate (51k–297k) is between 0.03% and 0.19% of the national workforce. That’s not a ‘national total.’

Slack Jaw, this is basic division. If it’s still confusing, ask your ex...she clearly handled the math in that relationship.
 
You are one of the most ignorant **** on here. 

How many net new nonfarm jobs were added in 2025?