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: -
Labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds is still lower than when Reagan left office.HoustonHusky said:
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: -
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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: -
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:
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: -
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: -
What was the cause of that?Sledog said: -
There were 17 words in my post, try reading them again.Sledog said: -
Free pub!!¡Sledog 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.BearsWiin said:Would you retards kindly get back to discussing TREASON!!! already? thx
-
Flagged for lack of !!!!!! after treason(!!!!)Sledog said: