Liberal Forum

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 10:00 am » wrote: No you are defecting ****. I'm making a parallel between your bold face Kasich lie and misrepresenting that Trump believes it is 42. I AGREE with you that he settled on 20 after bringing up 42 as a legit possibility.

Don't lie about me again.
And stop running from your Kasich faceplant.

He's made more than one statement on the issue. Just because he said 20 one of the time he flapped his dick valve, that doesn't mean he said 20 every time.

He also said 42.

Misty » 16 Feb 2016 9:59 pm » wrote:
Trumps own words from an interview in Time Magazine in August, 2015:



Transcript

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 10:01 am » wrote:

So, what does "we have a real unemployment rate that probably 21%" mean?

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 9:58 am » wrote: lol... I've defended nothing, I simply explained the math to you.
You admitted you were wrong and even apololgized for it, yet now continue to call ME a liar. How stupid is that?

The math doesn't work because Trump was talking about the unemployment rate. You chose to defend it before we BOTH discovered he really believes it's 20 not 42.
Yes you lied about Kasich. Why don't you address that?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 9:57 am » wrote: I don't think you have a very strong vocabulary.

Misinformed would mean we did not inform him. You saw us do it.

I think you've called him a liar. And I SUSPECT you are also about to insist that he's a bathrooming closet gay.

Be honest - is that where this is headed?

Just as you were misinformed on the year that the U3/U6 unemployment was changed and which president did it, AFTER we informed you.

Or were you lying?

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 10:02 am » wrote: So, what does "we have a real unemployment rate that probably 21%" mean?

That's not in the link I just gave you in the post you're responding to.

I never made a claim that trump said 42, only 42, and nothing but 42.

My claim was only that he DID say 42.

You can point to instances of him saying some other number - but I have never said he didn't run his mouth more than once and pull more than one figger from his ***.

You can show me him talking and NOT using the number 42 - or even mentioning unemployment. Doesn't change the fact that donnie trump put america's unemployment rate at 42%, using his mouth and all.

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 10:09 am » wrote:
Just as you were misinformed on the year that the U3/U6 unemployment was changed and which president did it, AFTER we informed you.

Or were you lying?

That is an issue currently under quibblation. My main purpose here is to refute, at long last, your insistence that Reagan served an 18 year term and died at the age of 112.

And don't think I missed your snide implication that golfby's a dicksucker, mister.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2016 10:13 am » wrote: That is an issue currently under quibblation. My main purpose here is to refute, at long last, your insistence that Reagan served an 18 year term and died at the age of 112.

And don't think I missed your snide implication that golfby's a dicksucker, mister.

Yes, you are wrong. Reagan only served a 16 year term until he was 118.

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 10:16 am » wrote:
Yes, you are wrong. Reagan only served a 16 year term until he was 118.

Politifact has been notified of this, sir. The matter is out of my hands, now.

I hope you're happy!

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 10:04 am » wrote: The math doesn't work because Trump was talking about the unemployment rate. You chose to defend it before we BOTH discovered he really believes it's 20 not 42.
Yes you lied about Kasich. Why don't you address that?

I never defended it, I merely explained the math to you.
Isn't it funny how you keep trying to deflect with your childish Kasich ****? Why is that, I wonder?

golfboy » 17 Feb 2016 10:19 am » wrote: I never defended it, I merely explained the math to you.
Isn't it funny how you keep trying to deflect with your childish Kasich ****? Why is that, I wonder?

Childish? You lied...be a man.
All you've done is run this whole time.

I don't have to defect anything because I'm not in the wrong about any of this.
Did you or did you not say Trump is close with his number (42)?

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 9:25 am » wrote:
Not exactly what trump said, note your edit before and after, but it is a pants on fire statement based on how he got the number:

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

Awesome description of the 92 million most of you cons throw around and describe as destitute people who CAN'T find a job in an Obama economy...





Category


People




Neither working nor officially unemployed, age 16 and up, civilians and noninstitutionalized only


94.0 million




Subtract: Ages 16 to 19


9.7 million




Subtract: Ages 65 and over


37.8 million




Subtract: Students, age 20 to 24


8.7 million




Subtract: Students, age 25 to 29


2.9 million




Subtract: Students, age 30 to 34


1.4 million




Subtract: Stay-at-home moms


10.3 million




Subtract: Stay-at-home dads


2.0 million




Subtract: Those receiving disability checks


9.0 million




Subtract: Those in job training, ages 24 to 29


745,000 (estimate)




Remainder:


11.5 million

bingster » 17 Feb 2016 10:41 am » wrote:
Awesome description of the 92 million most of you cons throw around and describe as destitute people who CAN'T find a job in an Obama economy...

Category

People

Neither working nor officially unemployed, age 16 and up, civilians and noninstitutionalized only

94.0 million

Subtract: Ages 16 to 19

9.7 million

Subtract: Ages 65 and over

37.8 million

Subtract: Students, age 20 to 24

8.7 million

Subtract: Students, age 25 to 29

2.9 million

Subtract: Students, age 30 to 34

1.4 million

Subtract: Stay-at-home moms

10.3 million

Subtract: Stay-at-home dads

2.0 million

Subtract: Those receiving disability checks

9.0 million

Subtract: Those in job training, ages 24 to 29

745,000 (estimate)

Remainder:

11.5 million

Ah, the loinfo moderator is here.

**** off ******* before you get hurt. Too much intelligence around for you to handle.

After you read the rest of my posts you can apologize at any time. Oh wait, you don't apologize. You make a quick admission than run off like a ******.

bingster » 17 Feb 2016 10:41 am » wrote:
Awesome description of the 92 million most of you cons throw around and describe as destitute people who CAN'T find a job in an Obama economy...

Category

People

Neither working nor officially unemployed, age 16 and up, civilians and noninstitutionalized only

94.0 million

Subtract: Ages 16 to 19

9.7 million

Subtract: Ages 65 and over

37.8 million

Subtract: Students, age 20 to 24

8.7 million

Subtract: Students, age 25 to 29

2.9 million

Subtract: Students, age 30 to 34

1.4 million

Subtract: Stay-at-home moms

10.3 million

Subtract: Stay-at-home dads

2.0 million

Subtract: Those receiving disability checks

9.0 million

Subtract: Those in job training, ages 24 to 29

745,000 (estimate)

Remainder:

11.5 million

But....golfboy said

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

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 10:47 am » wrote:
Ah, the loinfo moderator is here.

**** off ******* before you get hurt. Too much intelligence around for you to handle.

After you read the rest of my posts you can apologize at any time. Oh wait, you don't apologize. You make a quick admission than run off like a ******.

WTF is the matter with you, child? Last time I posted to you I admitted that I was wrong. I've never seen you admit that you are wrong and you usually are. Did someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?

Huey » 17 Feb 2016 10:47 am » wrote:
Ah, the loinfo moderator is here.

**** off ******* before you get hurt. Too much intelligence around for you to handle.

After you read the rest of my posts you can apologize at any time. Oh wait, you don't apologize. You make a quick admission than run off like a ******.

I was complimenting your link. Good job destroying the conjob **** complaint regarding low participation. I'll count you as an ally on this subject.

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 10:54 am » wrote: But....golfboy said

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

I can see Huey is out again providing ball sucking support to Golfboy. You would think he would learn from his backing Golfboy on the Slaves Voted thread.

bingster » 17 Feb 2016 11:08 am » wrote:
WTF is the matter with you, child? Last time I posted to you I admitted that I was wrong. I've never seen you admit that you are wrong and you usually are. Did someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?

I said ya did loinfo. But No apology for the insults you offered. Just a hit and run. That is what you do. You misread a post, start out with insults, then run away when show you are wrong.

And you are lying. You gave me stars the last I offered an apology and admission.

So now you have become a liar as well?

bingster » 17 Feb 2016 11:09 am » wrote:
I was complimenting your link. Good job destroying the conjob **** complaint regarding low participation. I'll count you as an ally on this subject.

Yeah, sure you were.

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2016 10:40 am » wrote: Childish? You lied...be a man.
All you've done is run this whole time.

I don't have to defect anything because I'm not in the wrong about any of this.
Did you or did you not say Trump is close with his number (42)?

Yes, childish. Trying to divert from the fact you admitted Trump didn't claim 42%.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 6:32 pm » wrote: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.

bingster » 17 Feb 2016 11:11 am » wrote:
I can see Huey is out again providing ball sucking support to Golfboy. You would think he would learn from his backing Golfboy on the Slaves Voted thread.

Non reading moron.

With readin skills like this BIngster is a moderator?


Moron, my post supported laddie.

Stupid ****.