Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

12346

Comments

  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,996
    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...
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    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.
  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,996
    2001400ex 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...

    Nice 2 year old article as always.
    Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?

    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.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,100 Standard Supporter
    edited August 2016
    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.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex 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...

    Nice 2 year old article as always.
    Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,996
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex 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...

    Nice 2 year old article as always.
    Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?

    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.
    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.

    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?

    God you give morons a bad name.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex 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...

    Nice 2 year old article as always.
    Labor participation rate gone up or down since then?

    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.
    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,100 Standard Supporter
    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
  • OZONEOZONE Member Posts: 2,510
    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    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.

    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.
    You sound as ignorant as Trump and all of his high school dropout voters.
    So is it the Saudis or Iran/Hezbollah that love us?

    One more time, because you seem really slow.

    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.
    Where did I say differently? It's a false argument...you seem to think that is the only terrorism that has ever occurred.

    So just to confirm, you are now saying the Saudis hate us and Iran/Hezbollah love us?

    I answered your question. If you wanted a different answer, ask a better question.

    Again, you are a shill for the Saudi love machine. The country that indoctrinated the 9/11 terrorists to hate America and hate Christians.
    I missed the old days when all terrorists were bad.
    The old days? In the old days, England thought our Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

    Maybe things are shades of grey on a spectrum of good and evil... not just black and white as the Trumptards believe.


    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.
    You are confusing the goal of understanding others, with sympathy, not quite the same thing.

    If you don't understand what motivates others, you are destined to be as stupid as Trump and his supporters.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,100 Standard Supporter
    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    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.

    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.
    You sound as ignorant as Trump and all of his high school dropout voters.
    So is it the Saudis or Iran/Hezbollah that love us?

    One more time, because you seem really slow.

    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.
    Where did I say differently? It's a false argument...you seem to think that is the only terrorism that has ever occurred.

    So just to confirm, you are now saying the Saudis hate us and Iran/Hezbollah love us?

    I answered your question. If you wanted a different answer, ask a better question.

    Again, you are a shill for the Saudi love machine. The country that indoctrinated the 9/11 terrorists to hate America and hate Christians.
    I missed the old days when all terrorists were bad.
    The old days? In the old days, England thought our Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

    Maybe things are shades of grey on a spectrum of good and evil... not just black and white as the Trumptards believe.


    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.
    Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Sledog said:

    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.

    They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,100 Standard Supporter

    Sledog said:

    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.

    They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.
    Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.

    They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.
    Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.
    What was the cause of that?
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.

    They relaxed the standards for SNAP eligibility in 2008. Shocking that more eligible people = more people enrolled.
    Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.
    There were 17 words in my post, try reading them again.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Sledog said:

    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    salemcoog said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    OZONE said:

    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.

    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.
    You sound as ignorant as Trump and all of his high school dropout voters.
    So is it the Saudis or Iran/Hezbollah that love us?

    One more time, because you seem really slow.

    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.
    Where did I say differently? It's a false argument...you seem to think that is the only terrorism that has ever occurred.

    So just to confirm, you are now saying the Saudis hate us and Iran/Hezbollah love us?

    I answered your question. If you wanted a different answer, ask a better question.

    Again, you are a shill for the Saudi love machine. The country that indoctrinated the 9/11 terrorists to hate America and hate Christians.
    I missed the old days when all terrorists were bad.
    The old days? In the old days, England thought our Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

    Maybe things are shades of grey on a spectrum of good and evil... not just black and white as the Trumptards believe.


    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.
    Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!
    Free pub!!¡
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,035
    Would you retards kindly get back to discussing TREASON!!! already? thx
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,100 Standard Supporter
    BearsWiin said:

    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.
  • BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 5,035
    Sledog said:

    BearsWiin said:

    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.
    Flagged for lack of !!!!!! after treason(!!!!)
Sign In or Register to comment.