How Iran spent Obama's $400 million cash ransom payment
Comments
-
I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues... -
Nice 2 year old article as always.HoustonHusky said:I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues... -
Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?2001400ex said:
Nice 2 year old article as always.HoustonHusky said:I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues...
Here is one from today if it makes you feel better:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/its-time-to-dump-the-unemployment-rate/
Moron. -
If they have to count that you worked just an hour or two in a week that you are therefor employed you know the books are cooked.
-
That article has some fake "real unemployment" which uses a combination of labor participation rate. This is lame because it totally ignores societal changes. So Carter must be remembered as an economic marvel because labor force participation went up during his tenure.HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?2001400ex said:
Nice 2 year old article as always.HoustonHusky said:I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues...
Here is one from today if it makes you feel better:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/its-time-to-dump-the-unemployment-rate/
Moron.
Then it talks about consumer confidence being down, which is true. But why is that?
You are taking one number and focusing on it to prove your point. And you are wrong. -
With the "societal changes" being a large group exiting the workforce via disability, staying in school, etc. etc. That was the previous article. And if you want to brag on Carter's crappy economy forcing women into the workforce (men dropped under him) more power to you. Or are you now saying Obama's forcing women to stay home now?2001400ex said:
That article has some fake "real unemployment" which uses a combination of labor participation rate. This is lame because it totally ignores societal changes. So Carter must be remembered as an economic marvel because labor force participation went up during his tenure.HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?2001400ex said:
Nice 2 year old article as always.HoustonHusky said:I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues...
Here is one from today if it makes you feel better:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/its-time-to-dump-the-unemployment-rate/
Moron.
Then it talks about consumer confidence being down, which is true. But why is that?
You are taking one number and focusing on it to prove your point. And you are wrong.
God you give morons a bad name. -
Holy shit. That's the point. You claim the economy is shitty now based on labor participation going down. But it went up when Carter was president, but you can his economy shitty too.HoustonHusky said:
With the "societal changes" being a large group exiting the workforce via disability, staying in school, etc. etc. That was the previous article. And if you want to brag on Carter's crappy economy forcing women into the workforce (men dropped under him) more power to you. Or are you now saying Obama's forcing women to stay home now?2001400ex said:
That article has some fake "real unemployment" which uses a combination of labor participation rate. This is lame because it totally ignores societal changes. So Carter must be remembered as an economic marvel because labor force participation went up during his tenure.HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?2001400ex said:
Nice 2 year old article as always.HoustonHusky said:I corrected myself and said you were not lying, you were just too dumb to understand, as the rest of your post shows yet again. Try and keep up.
And I love the 'its the same calc as in 2006 (where it was still artificially low but didn't have the percentages of people on disability or hiding in school because they couldn't find jobs as there are currently) so it must be the same as in 1988. Brilliant.
Lots of economic studies out there showing that age demographics are a minor player in the falling labor participation rate:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery
The recovery has been crappy, but you should be proud of yourself for distracting a thread on the $400 million cash ransom payment being used by Iran to fund its military/terrorist organization and turning it into yet another example of your ignorance, this time on economic issues...
Here is one from today if it makes you feel better:
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/its-time-to-dump-the-unemployment-rate/
Moron.
Then it talks about consumer confidence being down, which is true. But why is that?
You are taking one number and focusing on it to prove your point. And you are wrong.
God you give morons a bad name.
What I'm saying is you are a hypocrite, you just can't see it and you only response is to say I'm dumb. -
What isn't black and white is your misguided sympathy towards those that would drag your semi rotted corpse by your balls in the street if given half of a chance.OZONE said:
The old days? In the old days, England thought our Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.salemcoog said:
I missed the old days when all terrorists were bad.OZONE said:
I answered your question. If you wanted a different answer, ask a better question.HoustonHusky said:
Where did I say differently? It's a false argument...you seem to think that is the only terrorism that has ever occurred.OZONE said:
One more time, because you seem really slow.HoustonHusky said:
So is it the Saudis or Iran/Hezbollah that love us?OZONE said:
You sound as ignorant as Trump and all of his high school dropout voters.HoustonHusky said:
False argument...they all hate us. It's not an either/or, but you are too dumb to comprehend that. Keep distracting from the ransom payment and the fact it's being used to arm terrorists though.OZONE said:As I already knew.
You are a dumbfuck that doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni.
All of the 9/11 terrorists were Sunni.
Al Queda is Sunni.
ISIS is Sunni.
We started 2 huge wars to fight Sunni Islam groups that are 100% Sunni Islam.
But keep falling for the story that Shia is who we should fear. It makes your overlords happy.
The 9/11 terrorists were 90% Saudi nationals. None of them were from Iran or Hezbollah.
If you can follow that... you can answer your question yourself.
So just to confirm, you are now saying the Saudis hate us and Iran/Hezbollah love us?
Again, you are a shill for the Saudi love machine. The country that indoctrinated the 9/11 terrorists to hate America and hate Christians.
Maybe things are shades of grey on a spectrum of good and evil... not just black and white as the Trumptards believe. -
To be fair most of us would do thatsalemcoog said:
What isn't black and white is your misguided sympathy towards those that would drag your semi rotted corpse by your balls in the street if given half of a chance.OZONE said:
The old days? In the old days, England thought our Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.salemcoog said:
I missed the old days when all terrorists were bad.OZONE said:
I answered your question. If you wanted a different answer, ask a better question.HoustonHusky said:
Where did I say differently? It's a false argument...you seem to think that is the only terrorism that has ever occurred.OZONE said:
One more time, because you seem really slow.HoustonHusky said:
So is it the Saudis or Iran/Hezbollah that love us?OZONE said:
You sound as ignorant as Trump and all of his high school dropout voters.HoustonHusky said:
False argument...they all hate us. It's not an either/or, but you are too dumb to comprehend that. Keep distracting from the ransom payment and the fact it's being used to arm terrorists though.OZONE said:As I already knew.
You are a dumbfuck that doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni.
All of the 9/11 terrorists were Sunni.
Al Queda is Sunni.
ISIS is Sunni.
We started 2 huge wars to fight Sunni Islam groups that are 100% Sunni Islam.
But keep falling for the story that Shia is who we should fear. It makes your overlords happy.
The 9/11 terrorists were 90% Saudi nationals. None of them were from Iran or Hezbollah.
If you can follow that... you can answer your question yourself.
So just to confirm, you are now saying the Saudis hate us and Iran/Hezbollah love us?
Again, you are a shill for the Saudi love machine. The country that indoctrinated the 9/11 terrorists to hate America and hate Christians.
Maybe things are shades of grey on a spectrum of good and evil... not just black and white as the Trumptards believe. -
Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
