Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
How Iran spent Obama's $400 million cash ransom payment
Comments
-
OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!
-
Gosh why all the hostility Dennis? Can't we all just get along?Dennis_DeYoung said:OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!
-
Just sing come sail away and everything will be all right.Dennis_DeYoung said:OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!
-
I am with you! Don't let these assholes get away with it. Where did the $400 million come from? Pretty simple question that NO ONE can answer. We have a right to know, don't we? I've got your back...Sledog said:
Just sing come sail away and everything will be all right.Dennis_DeYoung said:OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!
-
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.HoustonHusky said:
Should I just use pictures for you next time? Crayons maybe?2001400ex said:
That's a great argument.HoustonHusky said:
I included your quote and you are still too dumb to figure it out. Go figure...2001400ex said:
What did I say that was a lie?HoustonHusky said:
Which goalposts are those? I wasn't part of the unemployment discussion...I just saw a false statement and commented accordingly.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Did it hurt to lift those goalposts and move them?HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.2001400ex said:
Fuel and food are up massively the last 5 years.Sledog said:
Yeah if you simply remove the unemployed from the count like the current administration does. Currently we enjoy the lowest labor participation rate since 1964. I'm thinking just maybe the population has grown too.2001400ex said:
You didn't build that.Sledog said:
I liked Ronnie. Made good money in the 80's built businesses it was good times. Unlike the current socialist slump.2001400ex said:
Where did I say Obama can do it, so can Reagan? The only thing I said, is you are too fucktarded to realize your hero did the same thing.Sledog said:
Iran is still under sanctions and the cash transaction was actually illegal. But the dictator is above the law.2001400ex said:
From Wikipedia and that's what happened. Your mind just won't wrap around the fact that Reagan would do the same thing Obama did.Sledog said:
At the time Iran was at war with Iraq. Kept both of them killing each other and we funded the Contra's out of the profits to fight your comrades. Good idea but not legal. We did not pay for hostages.2001400ex said:
You were bitching about giving money to Iran for hostages. I show you Regan gave guns to Iran for hostages. Then you deflect to giving guns to al quada and ISIS. Which is another lie. You actually lie like Hillary.Sledog said:
So your saying because more people weren't prosecuted it's OK now? We don't need to declassify anything well just ask Wiki or Putin for the hacked secret emails.2001400ex said:
I guess Reagan gave them guns rather than money. But still.Sledog said:
No I would not. This makes the US a target for hostage taking. We do not negotiate with terrorists they should only be paid in lead or C4.2001400ex said:
It was ransom and a payment for prior debt. Who gives a fuck? If it were Trump, you'd call him a hero for getting prisoners released.Sledog said:Nothing to see here move along people.....
And Iran isn't the #1 facilitator of terrorism.
The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]
While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]
Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13]
Providing arms to AL Qaueda and ISIS is quite a bit different. We're actively fighting both. Didn't think we were at war with Iran.
Nice deflection BTW. You are awful at this.
Holy smokes you lift that from an Iranian news site? \
Your saying Obama can do it because Reagan did is deflection. Directly funding terrorists is also illegal. Iran is a terrorismust sponsor. Your guy pulled this shit. By your analogy no crime was committed by Reagan because he wasn't convicted so stop deflecting and slap your homeboy down for funding terrorists who will use it to kill our people.
And unemployment is lower now than it was at anytime during Reagan's presidency.
Inflation great too Right? Except they don't count fuel or food. After all who uses that stuff!
Figures never lie but liars figure.
Oh wait.
And nice lies. 1964? Lol and of course ignore baby boomers. That doesn't effect labor participation at all. Right?
Back you your lies now...
I shouldn't call it a lie though...HondoFS isn't smart enough to knowingly do much of anything. He's just too stupid to realize what he is saying isn't true.
How does that comment in any way say anything about how I lied? I said unemployment is lower now than any time in Reagan's presidency. Is that not true? -
Obama cut one contract from Haliburton.Sledog said:Where did BHO get the 400 million?
If this unethical rigged DOJ objected it must have been akin to genocide.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department -
He's probably has paid them more than Bush did.2001400ex said:
Obama cut one contract from Haliburton.Sledog said:Where did BHO get the 400 million?
If this unethical rigged DOJ objected it must have been akin to genocide.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department -
Of course because unemployment now is not measured in any way the same as it was in the 1980s (or before, or even the 90s...the calculation itself has been changed several times). Anyone with a clue would know this, which is why you don't. Its a discussion that happens around here once a year.2001400ex said:
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.HoustonHusky said:
Should I just use pictures for you next time? Crayons maybe?2001400ex said:
That's a great argument.HoustonHusky said:
I included your quote and you are still too dumb to figure it out. Go figure...2001400ex said:
What did I say that was a lie?HoustonHusky said:
Which goalposts are those? I wasn't part of the unemployment discussion...I just saw a false statement and commented accordingly.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Did it hurt to lift those goalposts and move them?HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.2001400ex said:
Fuel and food are up massively the last 5 years.Sledog said:
Yeah if you simply remove the unemployed from the count like the current administration does. Currently we enjoy the lowest labor participation rate since 1964. I'm thinking just maybe the population has grown too.2001400ex said:
You didn't build that.Sledog said:
I liked Ronnie. Made good money in the 80's built businesses it was good times. Unlike the current socialist slump.2001400ex said:
Where did I say Obama can do it, so can Reagan? The only thing I said, is you are too fucktarded to realize your hero did the same thing.Sledog said:
Iran is still under sanctions and the cash transaction was actually illegal. But the dictator is above the law.2001400ex said:
From Wikipedia and that's what happened. Your mind just won't wrap around the fact that Reagan would do the same thing Obama did.Sledog said:
At the time Iran was at war with Iraq. Kept both of them killing each other and we funded the Contra's out of the profits to fight your comrades. Good idea but not legal. We did not pay for hostages.2001400ex said:
You were bitching about giving money to Iran for hostages. I show you Regan gave guns to Iran for hostages. Then you deflect to giving guns to al quada and ISIS. Which is another lie. You actually lie like Hillary.Sledog said:
So your saying because more people weren't prosecuted it's OK now? We don't need to declassify anything well just ask Wiki or Putin for the hacked secret emails.2001400ex said:
I guess Reagan gave them guns rather than money. But still.Sledog said:
No I would not. This makes the US a target for hostage taking. We do not negotiate with terrorists they should only be paid in lead or C4.2001400ex said:
It was ransom and a payment for prior debt. Who gives a fuck? If it were Trump, you'd call him a hero for getting prisoners released.Sledog said:Nothing to see here move along people.....
And Iran isn't the #1 facilitator of terrorism.
The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]
While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]
Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13]
Providing arms to AL Qaueda and ISIS is quite a bit different. We're actively fighting both. Didn't think we were at war with Iran.
Nice deflection BTW. You are awful at this.
Holy smokes you lift that from an Iranian news site? \
Your saying Obama can do it because Reagan did is deflection. Directly funding terrorists is also illegal. Iran is a terrorismust sponsor. Your guy pulled this shit. By your analogy no crime was committed by Reagan because he wasn't convicted so stop deflecting and slap your homeboy down for funding terrorists who will use it to kill our people.
And unemployment is lower now than it was at anytime during Reagan's presidency.
Inflation great too Right? Except they don't count fuel or food. After all who uses that stuff!
Figures never lie but liars figure.
Oh wait.
And nice lies. 1964? Lol and of course ignore baby boomers. That doesn't effect labor participation at all. Right?
Back you your lies now...
I shouldn't call it a lie though...HondoFS isn't smart enough to knowingly do much of anything. He's just too stupid to realize what he is saying isn't true.
How does that comment in any way say anything about how I lied? I said unemployment is lower now than any time in Reagan's presidency. Is that not true?
However, when someone brought up the labor participation rate you said it was not valid because "Lol and of course ignore baby boomers. That doesn't effect labor participation at all."
I merely pointed out that if you compare the labor participation rate of 25-54 year olds from the last years of Reagan to now, the labor participation rate was higher under Reagan. That ignores the impact of "baby boomers".
God you are a moron.
-
I'm guessing they didn't spend it on hookers and blow. Goats and humus?
-
How does that prove I'm lying? Holy fuck. And you can look up the changes to unemployment. The formula is the same now as it was in 06 when conservatives were screaming "see low unemployment". That doesn't make the number not comparable to 1988.HoustonHusky said:
Of course because unemployment now is not measured in any way the same as it was in the 1980s (or before, or even the 90s...the calculation itself has been changed several times). Anyone with a clue would know this, which is why you don't. Its a discussion that happens around here once a year.2001400ex said:
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.HoustonHusky said:
Should I just use pictures for you next time? Crayons maybe?2001400ex said:
That's a great argument.HoustonHusky said:
I included your quote and you are still too dumb to figure it out. Go figure...2001400ex said:
What did I say that was a lie?HoustonHusky said:
Which goalposts are those? I wasn't part of the unemployment discussion...I just saw a false statement and commented accordingly.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Did it hurt to lift those goalposts and move them?HoustonHusky said:
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.2001400ex said:
Fuel and food are up massively the last 5 years.Sledog said:
Yeah if you simply remove the unemployed from the count like the current administration does. Currently we enjoy the lowest labor participation rate since 1964. I'm thinking just maybe the population has grown too.2001400ex said:
You didn't build that.Sledog said:
I liked Ronnie. Made good money in the 80's built businesses it was good times. Unlike the current socialist slump.2001400ex said:
Where did I say Obama can do it, so can Reagan? The only thing I said, is you are too fucktarded to realize your hero did the same thing.Sledog said:
Iran is still under sanctions and the cash transaction was actually illegal. But the dictator is above the law.2001400ex said:
From Wikipedia and that's what happened. Your mind just won't wrap around the fact that Reagan would do the same thing Obama did.Sledog said:
At the time Iran was at war with Iraq. Kept both of them killing each other and we funded the Contra's out of the profits to fight your comrades. Good idea but not legal. We did not pay for hostages.2001400ex said:
You were bitching about giving money to Iran for hostages. I show you Regan gave guns to Iran for hostages. Then you deflect to giving guns to al quada and ISIS. Which is another lie. You actually lie like Hillary.Sledog said:
So your saying because more people weren't prosecuted it's OK now? We don't need to declassify anything well just ask Wiki or Putin for the hacked secret emails.2001400ex said:
I guess Reagan gave them guns rather than money. But still.Sledog said:
No I would not. This makes the US a target for hostage taking. We do not negotiate with terrorists they should only be paid in lead or C4.2001400ex said:
It was ransom and a payment for prior debt. Who gives a fuck? If it were Trump, you'd call him a hero for getting prisoners released.Sledog said:Nothing to see here move along people.....
And Iran isn't the #1 facilitator of terrorism.
The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]
While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]
Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13]
Providing arms to AL Qaueda and ISIS is quite a bit different. We're actively fighting both. Didn't think we were at war with Iran.
Nice deflection BTW. You are awful at this.
Holy smokes you lift that from an Iranian news site? \
Your saying Obama can do it because Reagan did is deflection. Directly funding terrorists is also illegal. Iran is a terrorismust sponsor. Your guy pulled this shit. By your analogy no crime was committed by Reagan because he wasn't convicted so stop deflecting and slap your homeboy down for funding terrorists who will use it to kill our people.
And unemployment is lower now than it was at anytime during Reagan's presidency.
Inflation great too Right? Except they don't count fuel or food. After all who uses that stuff!
Figures never lie but liars figure.
Oh wait.
And nice lies. 1964? Lol and of course ignore baby boomers. That doesn't effect labor participation at all. Right?
Back you your lies now...
I shouldn't call it a lie though...HondoFS isn't smart enough to knowingly do much of anything. He's just too stupid to realize what he is saying isn't true.
How does that comment in any way say anything about how I lied? I said unemployment is lower now than any time in Reagan's presidency. Is that not true?
However, when someone brought up the labor participation rate you said it was not valid because "Lol and of course ignore baby boomers. That doesn't effect labor participation at all."
I merely pointed out that if you compare the labor participation rate of 25-54 year olds from the last years of Reagan to now, the labor participation rate was higher under Reagan. That ignores the impact of "baby boomers".
God you are a moron.
And no, just looking at 25-54 doesn't ignore the effect of baby boomers. There's a portion of baby boomers that can't retire early that's taking jobs from younger folk. So baby boomers are loving longer, which effects the stats when you include all people. -
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.
-
You are confusing the goal of understanding others, with sympathy, not quite the same thing.salemcoog 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.
If you don't understand what motivates others, you are destined to be as stupid as Trump and his supporters. -
Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!salemcoog 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. -
They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.Sledog said:Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
-
Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.UWhuskytskeet said:
They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.Sledog said:Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
-
What was the cause of that?Sledog said:
Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.UWhuskytskeet said:
They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.Sledog said:Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
-
There were 17 words in my post, try reading them again.Sledog said:
Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.UWhuskytskeet said:
They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.Sledog said:Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
-
Free pub!!¡Sledog said:
Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!salemcoog 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. -
Would you retards kindly get back to discussing TREASON!!! already? thx
-
Looks we know you treason guys like Hillary but we're thread jacking the best we can.BearsWiin said:Would you retards kindly get back to discussing TREASON!!! already? thx
