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

124

Comments

  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter

    OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!

    Gosh why all the hostility Dennis? Can't we all just get along?
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter

    OBAMA HATES AMERICA IS MAKING US WEAK AND COMMITTING TREASON!!!

    Just sing come sail away and everything will be all right.
  • Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    Just sing come sail away and everything will be all right.
    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...
  • Member Posts: 29,457

    Should I just use pictures for you next time? Crayons maybe?
    Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.

    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?
  • Member Posts: 29,457
    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

    Obama cut one contract from Haliburton.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    Obama cut one contract from Haliburton.
    He's probably has paid them more than Bush did.
  • Member Posts: 5,999
    2001400ex said:

    Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.

    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?
    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.

    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.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter
    I'm guessing they didn't spend it on hookers and blow. Goats and humus?
  • Member Posts: 29,457

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • Member Posts: 5,999
    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...
  • 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.
  • Member Posts: 5,999
    2001400ex said:

    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.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 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.
  • Member Posts: 29,457

    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.
  • Member Posts: 5,999
    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.

    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.
  • Member Posts: 29,457

    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.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter
    Millions more people on welfare, food stamps and every other welfare program we have in Obama's time. Obviously unemployment is low.
  • Member Posts: 2,510
    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.
    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.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter
    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.
    Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!
  • 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.
  • Member Posts: 37,635 Standard Supporter

    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.
  • Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.
    What was the cause of that?
  • Member Posts: 7,113
    Sledog said:

    Check your facts. 20 million more on food stamps under Obama.
    There were 17 words in my post, try reading them again.
  • Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Sledog said:

    Wouldn't balls be a requirement? Can't drag Ozone by his taint!
    Free pub!!¡
  • Member Posts: 5,070
    Would you retards kindly get back to discussing TREASON!!! already? thx
  • Member Posts: 37,635 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.
  • Member Posts: 5,070
    Sledog said:

    Looks we know you treason guys like Hillary but we're thread jacking the best we can.
    Flagged for lack of !!!!!! after treason(!!!!)

Welcome!

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

Welcome!

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