Liberal Forum

I finally made it back to the simulation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu9sEdi48Tg

I am going to get super Hegsethed tonight...

*Huey » 11 Jan 2025, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 3:09 pm

Who is running the country?

You're running away....again.

HarperLee » 11 Jan 2025, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 3:17 pm

Seems like a few things have been happening since Biden took over...
And to think....

They predicted Trump would start a nuclear war "anyday"
 
Remember when Pelosi didn't want Trump to have the nuclear codes??

Things always happen...

Remember 2008?
 

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 4:30 pm

You're running away....again.

Look, there is nothing to answer. You are diverting.  You showed you did not read the actual BLS report, which point.

Now tell me, who is running the country?  Keep running, lil disappointment.

*Huey » 11 Jan 2025, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 4:32 pm

Look, there is nothing to answer. You are diverting.  You showed you did not read the actual BLS report, which point.

Now tell me, who is running the country?  Keep running, lil disappointment.

Take another look.

viewtopic.php?p=2682452#p2682452

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 4:36 pm

Take another look.

viewtopic.php?p=2682452#p2682452

He proved you did not read the BLSreport.  That is point. You were curb stomped.

Now, who is running the country?  Why are you afraid to to answer?  Why you are afraid to question the WH staff?  I'll tell you why.  You are loinfo who listened to the MSM for years.  Even the MSM is starting that but you are not smart realize it.


That is why I don't fear you.  You are not very smart.  And a coward, so to speak.

*Huey » 11 Jan 2025, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 4:39 pm

He proved you did not read the BLSreport.  That is point. You were curb stomped.

Now, who is running the country?  Why are you afraid to to answer?  Why you are afraid to question the WH staff?  I'll tell you why.  You are loinfo who listened to the MSM for years.  Even the MSM is starting that but you are not smart realize it.

That is why I don't fear you.  You are not very smart.  And a coward, so to speak.




 

You're a **** idiot..

Answer the question. 

That is why I don't fear you.  You are not very smart.  And a coward, so to speak.

Then answer the question, 3.5

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 5:18 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 5:18 pm

You're a **** idiot..

Answer the question. 

Then answer the question, 3.5

Your question has nothing to do with what I commented on and you got curb stomped about.

This is a question you have run from for months.  Who is running the country?  And do you feel like and idiot for believing Biden is mentally fit for office.

Look, Cowardly Too Far, I don't care what training you claim to have, or that you once got peppered sprayed, or you are a person of avg intelligence, if not less.  I do not fear you in any context and you are unable to piss me off.

Nod, Richard.  

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 7:34 am

Including December’s gains, which are subject to revision, the economy added about 2.2 million jobs in 2024, an average of 186,000 jobs per month. That’s in line with annual totals from 2017 to 2019 but marks a slowdown from the blowout gains seen during the pandemic recovery during the prior years.

 “The labor market is strong, and in an aggregate sense, it really doesn’t get much better than this,” Elizabeth Crofoot, senior economist at labor analytics firm Lightcast, told CNN. “There’s very robust job growth. We have low unemployment — it ticked down in the latest month. Layoffs are low. People have jobs, and they are spending, and that continues to bolster the economy and the labor market.”

 The US has now added jobs for 48 months in a row, tying the second-longest period of employment expansion on record.

 Friday’s data also appears to cap off a historic achievement for President Joe Biden: Barring revisions, he’s the first US president to oversee monthly job gains for the entirety of his presidency, according to BLS records that go back to 1939

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/economy/ ... index.html

"B....b....b...b...but we don't like it!" - ******* America

In November, there were 8.716 million people working multiple jobs (5.4% of the civilian workforce).  That number was 4.4 million in January 2021.  That means roughly 25% of the "jobs created" under Biden didn't represent a new worker, it was someone who already had a job getting another job...my guess would be so they could keep buying the necessities of life given the highest inflation in a generation.

ConsRule » 11 Jan 2025, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 6:11 pm

In November, there were 8.716 million people working multiple jobs (5.4% of the civilian workforce).  That number was 4.4 million in January 2021.  That means roughly 25% of the "jobs created" under Biden didn't represent a new worker, it was someone who already had a job getting another job...my guess would be so they could keep buying the necessities of life given the highest inflation in a generation.

This data series?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 7:36 am

To be fair, Grifty is the first FELON to take office....and the first adjudicated rapist.

I guess "Greatness" is relative.

Reality is total sum of human behavior since inception of the species.

Real evolving is current generation gaps left since the first generation of homo sapiens became native to this atmosphere and since history wasn't journalized until about 7,000 years ago to keep every great great grandchild repeating what their 4 previous generations created from hypothetical possibilities brought forth by institutional ideologies is greater than each ancestor adapting uniquely alive now.

How it was done follow means, motives, methods, ideologies, corruption, factual misdirection through context over content evolution.

Why life is the numbers here is simple compounding chromosomes to ancestral streaming DNA configurations each generation gap so far.

Say it isn't so?

Blackvegetable » 11 Jan 2025, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2025, 7:17 pm

This data series?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620

It shows part of what I posted.  Thank you for reinforcing my point.

ConsRule » 12 Jan 2025, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 8:17 am

It shows part of what I posted.  Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Now that you see your number in context, how does it compare historically?

Blackvegetable » 12 Jan 2025, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 9:51 am

Now that you see your number in context, how does it compare historically?

Evolving never stays same results twice to current numbers present.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jan 2025, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 9:51 am

Now that you see your number in context, how does it compare historically?

I wasn't interested in what they were historically.  I posted what I needed to make the point I wanted to make.  I understand the need to change the subject it is part of your whiny *** liberal genetics...but that's a you problem.

ConsRule » 12 Jan 2025, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 10:29 am

I wasn't interested in what they were historically.  I posted what I needed to make the point I wanted to make.  I understand the need to change the subject it is part of your whiny *** liberal genetics...but that's a you problem.

I'm not concerned with your feelings.

Answer the question. 

Then we can move on to whatever point you thought you were making.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jan 2025, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 10:38 am

I'm not concerned with your feelings.

Answer the question. 

Then we can move on to whatever point you thought you were making.

And I am not concerned about what you want.  I made the point I wanted to make.  Your question is not relevant to the point I made.  If you want to post links to data that contradict the correctness of my numbers...feel free.  However I choose not to participate in your attempted diversion.  Apparently you're going to have to suck it up.
 

ConsRule » 12 Jan 2025, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 11:32 am

And I am not concerned about what you want.  I made the point I wanted to make.  Your question is not relevant to the point I made.  If you want to post links to data that contradict the correctness of my numbers...feel free.  However I choose not to participate in your attempted diversion.  Apparently you're going to have to suck it up.

Wax....don't elaborate.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jan 2025, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2025, 11:34 am

Wax....don't elaborate.

SHOOT YOURSELF BITCH