Liberal Forum

I know this little **** is trying to goad me into responding directly to him because I am seeing lots of these:





Responding to the filthy little liar is as useful as repeatedly bashing ones head into a brick wall, and I have no desire to do either.

Misty » 16 Feb 2016 5:20 pm » wrote:I know this little **** is trying to goad me into responding directly to him because I am seeing lots of these:



Responding to the filthy little liar is as useful as repeatedly bashing ones head into a brick wall, and I have no desire to do either.

You've ALREADY responded to me directly, you ignorant slut.

Run away Misty, it's all you can do when you get called out for lying, and can't defend your position.
As if I care.

All you're proving here, is that you can't ignore me.

Obsessive little creep.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 5:12 pm » wrote: You want to prove it's not "probably 20%" or do we just take your word for it?

You yourself admitted it's calculated the same way since 1994. I assume you were telling the truth there and lying now. It's up to Trump and you his defender to prove it's one of the 3 or 4 or 5 random numbers he pulled out of his ***. Until then it is as you claim, calculated the same as it has been since 94. And I don't want to hear anymore **** from you or him.

Good luck proving he was correct. Until then you are a **** ******* for arguing with me.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 5:25 pm » wrote: You yourself admitted it's calculated the same way since 1994. I assume you were telling the truth there and lying now. It's up to Trump and you his defender to prove it's one of the 3 or 4 or 5 random numbers he pulled out of his ***. Until then it is as you claim, calculated the same as it has been since 94. And I don't want to hear anymore **** from you or him.

Good luck proving he was correct. Until then you are a **** ******* for arguing with me.

I'm not lying about anything. You're were one that "misquoted" Trump and still claims 20% = 42%.

Yes, it's been calculated the same way since 1994, but we've never people who were unemployed so long they just gave up.
That's the ONLY reason the unemployment rate has come down while the labor participation rate simultaneously dropped.

I challenged you to prove his 20% number is wrong, and THIS is your response? That's telling, isn't it?

Misty » 16 Feb 2016 5:25 pm » wrote:Obsessive little creep.

^^ runs away because he can't defend her lies.
And we all KNOW she hits that "display this post" link, because she obviously CAN'T ignore me.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 5:44 pm » wrote: I'm not lying about anything. You're were one that "misquoted" Trump and still claims 20% = 42%.

Yes, it's been calculated the same way since 1994, but we've never people who were unemployed so long they just gave up.
That's the ONLY reason the unemployment rate has come down while the labor participation rate simultaneously dropped.

I challenged you to prove his 20% number is wrong, and THIS is your response? That's telling, isn't it?

My response is that he tossed around several numbers:

I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."

No **** serious economist thinks the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is over 40, 30, or even 20. Those are all lies and you are being an idiot for defending it.

My respose was for you to prove it. So far you've only talked about the labor force participation which I've demonstrated is different.

So you want to settle on this geniuses "probably 20%" or "as high as 42%"
Prove it!
That's the claim you are defending. When you say

"Trump WAS talking about the official unemployment rate, and said the government is lying. 
That's the WHOLE **** POINT." Golfboy.

So you prove it. I bet you cannot.
Btw I can prove "the official unemployment rate" is not any of those. It's up to you to prove his nonsense true now.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 6:14 pm » wrote: My response is that he tossed around several numbers:

I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."

No **** serious economist thinks the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is over 40, 30, or even 20. Those are all lies and you are being an idiot for defending it.

My respose was for you to prove it. So far you've only talked about the labor force participation which I've demonstrated is different.

So you want to settle on this geniuses "probably 20%" or "as high as 42%"
Prove it!
That's the claim you are defending. When you say

"Trump WAS talking about the official unemployment rate, and said the government is lying.
That's the WHOLE **** POINT." Golfboy.

So you prove it. I bet you cannot.
Btw I can prove "the official unemployment rate" is not any of those. It's up to you to prove his nonsense true now.

Of course I can prove the official number isn't correct.
The labor participation rate for prime earners (25-54) is at it's lowest number since 1982. Where are those workers?

He never said the unemployment rate was 42% as you and the ignorant bitch claimed.
And we know the official unemployment rate is a lie.
And now we know you have no clue what the real rate is, so whatever number Trump chose (20%) he could very easily be right.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 5:10 pm » wrote:"The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent"

20% is the new 42%

These are Trump's words:

"Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours, meaning that the real unemployment rate was 42.9%, not 5.5%!"


I take back saying I accidentally added "real" he said that. You take back saying he didn't say 42% he did.

You lied. You lose.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 6:23 pm » wrote: These are Trump's words:

"Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours, meaning that the real unemployment rate was 42.9%, not 5.5%!"

I take back saying I accidentally added "real" he said that. You take back saying he didn't say 42% he did.

You lied. You lose.

Why would I take back something that is correct? He never said the rate was 42%
You just quoted what number he said he thought it was at - 20%.
20% <> 42%

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 6:26 pm » wrote: Why would I take back something that is correct? He never said the rate was 42%
You just quoted what number he said he thought it was at - 20%.
20% <> 42%

I rechecked that quote. It was actually from David Stockman from mistys link. It's where Trump got the figure he threw out there. My apologies.
He did think it was worth repeating however then sort of kind of settled on 20. I'll let you prove any of this **** is true.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 4:57 pm » wrote: Your right. He didn't say real, he just said unemployment. Which is inconsequential but I did accidentally add real.
He's lying and you're covering for him.

Trumps own words from an interview in Time Magazine in August, 2015:



Transcript

Alex Jones: 'My Gut Tells Me' Antonin Scalia Was Murdered

On Saturday Night, Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, went on Facebook to give an emergency transmission to his believers.

Jones: My friends, it's Saturday night, this is an emergency transmission.

The question is, was Antonin Scalia murdered? And the answer to that is, has the Bill of Rights and Constitution been murdered?

Has it been reported that members of the Supreme Court have been blackmailed? Yes it has.

When they kill somebody they say, "it appears to be natural causes, nothing to see."

And I wish it was natural cause, but man, my gut tells me no. And if this is an assassination, this signifies that they are dropping the hammer.

Jones even brought up a conspiracy about Andrew Breitbart's death.

My link contains the video Jones posted on Facebook, but it is long and rambling and unwatchable.

Misty » 07 Feb 2016 9:05 pm » wrote: Firefighters Slam Ted Cruz For Claiming To Be Their Champion While Opposing 9/11 Health Bill

QUICK! We need a SQUIRREL so we don't notice Cruz is a hypocrite and got called for it!

golfboy » 08 Feb 2016 8:12 am » wrote: Why is it liberals portray unions as representing their forced membership?

Nevermind - *** got it.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 8:29 am » wrote:
So let's look at the numbers, shall we?
BLS says that labor participation rate is 62.7%
That means 37.3% are not participating in the job market.
And that market excludes anyone under 16.

So yea, I'd say that Trump's number is really close.

So, my 77 year old retired mom is "unemployed?"

You're a **** idiot.

JoeLib » 14 Feb 2016 4:50 pm » wrote: I used to think the people of this nation could not be duped like this. I forgot that when you repeat something long enough, people will believe it no matter if they are smart or stupid.

And SPEAKING of gorebal smarming - what a pile.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 12:26 pm » wrote: Unemployed is not just a government term, it also can clearly include ANYONE not working, and Trump is right at about 45% of the country doesn't work.

Repukes COMPLAN about stay at home moms, blame the ***.

Racist ****.

greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2016 1:06 pm » wrote:
Was the criteria used in unemployment numbers different during the Bush administration?

Just trying to figure out if this is a new fangled way of playing with the numbers or if Obama inherited it. I seem to recall it was no different during the Bush administration.

It's been the same way since Reagan.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 1:54 pm » wrote: You admitted they haven't changed the calculation since 94. Let's compare apples and apples.
Trump lied when he said it was higher


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-42-perc/

Don't defend a liar.

Gooboi is a liar himself.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 2:05 pm » wrote: Are you just going to keep repeating yourself, ignoring the chronically unemployed that never existed before, who are pushed off the unemployment numbers?

It was reagan who changed the way the numbers were calculated, to effect PRECISELY that outcome, ****.