Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 2:15 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:15 pm

It's his defining feature.

Come up with new ****. It will be less embarrassing for you. All you do is repeat the same **** day after day here. Hence, my 100% accuracy.

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:12 pm

I'll demonstrate your dishonesty when lowiq agrees.

The only thing you have ever demonstrated is your inability to read and do simple math. 

He needs to prove to me that he knows what survivorship bias is first. 



@LowIQTrash  this is a perfect example of his dishonest games. He is already trying to circumvent the deal toward his way. I made it clear that I will not agree unless you can demonstrate that you know what survivorship bias is. However, he is already avoiding that. This is a perfect example of how he debates. he lies incessantly. 

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 1:06 pm

That's now between you and the Federal Reserve of Boston. I'm reasonably certain they're credentialed economists.

You fathered ugly children.

Absolutely NOTHING worth reading.

"Weasel words" seems to be something that his **** IDIOT is easily manipulated with.

You know the ones....

Can, might, maybe, could, somewhat, etc.

 

*Beekeeper » 07 Mar 2025, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 3:57 pm

Absolutely NOTHING worth reading.

"Weasel words" seems to be something that his **** IDIOT is easily manipulated with.

You know the ones....

Can, might, maybe, could, somewhat, etc.

Might as well face it we're addicted to Trump


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE

Vegas » 07 Mar 2025, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 2:21 pm

The only thing you have ever demonstrated is your inability to read and do simple math. 

He needs to prove to me that he knows what survivorship bias is first. 

@LowIQTrash  this is a perfect example of his dishonest games. He is already trying to circumvent the deal toward his way. I made it clear that I will not agree unless you can demonstrate that you know what survivorship bias is. However, he is already avoiding that. This is a perfect example of how he debates. he lies incessantly.

 

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period

 Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 


You're so g'ddammned **** stupid.
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 6:58 am » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 6:58 am

President Trump inherited an economy that was, by most conventional measures, firing on all cylinders. Wages, consumer spending and corporate profits were rising. Unemployment was low. The inflation rate, though higher than normal, was falling. 

  
 

Lets count the lies just in this morons opening paragraph.

1.) Trump inherited an economy that was “firing on all cylinders”.    No explanation needed. Just a bold-faced little liar.

2.) Wages and everything was on the rise. What good does that do when prices have skyrocketed everywhere? You think a 75 cent raise to someone means ****? People would have all needed their incomes to raise by at least 1/3 just to cut even with inflation. Nice little cherry-pick. Lie. 

3.) The inflation rate was falling. Again, pure ****. 

The voters decided everything you just said was false. 

SouthernFried » 07 Mar 2025, 8:04 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 8:04 pm

Lets count the lies just in this morons opening paragraph.

1.) Trump inherited an economy that was “firing on all cylinders”.    No explanation needed. Just a bold-faced little liar.

2.) Wages and everything was on the rise. What good does that do when prices have skyrocketed everywhere? You think a 75 cent raise to someone means ****? People would have all needed their incomes to raise by at least 1/3 just to cut even with inflation. Nice little cherry-pick. Lie. 

3.) The inflation rate was falling. Again, pure ****. 

The voters decided everything you just said was false.

1) Is too!
**** idiot

2) You're innumerate

3) Was too!

**** idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm

 Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

You're so g'ddammned **** stupid.

Define "gross jobs". 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP822nm5D/
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 9:48 am

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP822nm5D/

Hey ruby, what's listed under her picture?



so **** gd'damned stupid...
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm

 Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

You're so g'ddammned **** stupid.

  That was the problem with Biden's numbers. He didn't use this: Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

And did you bother reading the whole example to put what I said in context? Of course not. You never will. 


Challenge. Cannon judges.

 

Blackvegetable » 07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2025, 7:04 pm

 Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

You're so g'ddammned **** stupid.

 

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period

Wait....wait a minute. I just won the challenge. You literally proved my point.          Y

ou dumb mother ****. You *******. You ****!
That was the point of my example had you read it all. Biden reported his job numbers using a manner that wasn't this: Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

His data sampling was flawed due to a survivorship bias. All you had to do is read the whole damn thing. 


          You stupid mother ****!

Vegas » 08 Mar 2025, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 10:46 am

  That was the problem with Biden's numbers. He didn't use this: Net Jobs = Gross Jobs - Jobs lost. 

And did you bother reading the whole example to put what I said in context? Of course not. You never will. 

Challenge. Cannon judges.

BLS does....

**** lying moron.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 12:56 pm

BLS does....

**** lying moron.

Let's see if we have revision after revision of jobs numbers under Trump as we did under Biden, the man you voted for.  That 800,000 revision was a doozy.  

*Huey » 08 Mar 2025, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:39 pm

Let's see if we have revision after revision of jobs numbers under Trump as we did under Biden, the man you voted for.  That 800,000 revision was a doozy.

You're a **** idiot.

You wouldn't know where to look.

Let's see if we have revision after revision of jobs numbers under Trump

Let's hope we get Biden's job growth, instead of Grifty I....

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:42 pm

You're a **** idiot.

You wouldn't know where to look.

Let's hope we get Biden's job growth, instead of Grifty I....

now where to look?  LMAO!  It will be in the news.  What else ya got, Binky Boy?

*Huey » 08 Mar 2025, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:44 pm

now where to look?  LMAO!  It will be in the news.  What else ya got, Binky Boy?

:rofl:  

Tell me about any revisions under Grifty 1..


 

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:45 pm

 

Tell me about any revisions under Grifty 1..

BV stuck on stupid

Blackvegetable » 08 Mar 2025, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:45 pm

 

Tell me about any revisions under Grifty 1..

1. That is your job.

2.  We are talking about 47, Reframe.

Let me know when it happens and you will see me criticize his administration.  You sucking dem ***.

*Huey » 08 Mar 2025, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2025, 1:48 pm

1. That is your job.

2.  We are talking about 47, Reframe.

Let me know when it happens and you will see me criticize his administration.  You sucking dem ***.

Are these your words?

Let's see if we have revision after revision of jobs numbers under Trump as we did under Biden, the man you voted for.

2.  We are talking about 47, Reframe

Post the thread title..