Your logic and examples are basically illogical and immature.
Amazing how many right-wingers are so upset about Benghazi's few deaths, but
not at all upset by the several hundred of thousands of deaths caused by the
unjust and illogical war that George W Bush and Cheney started.
Like I stated previously, "Conservatives seem to always have excuses and
rarely take responsibility for their actions when their actions, or
inactions,do not turn out well".
Neither Party is blameless and only a fool would think so.
That's a pretty broad brush you're painting folks there with. You use
broad general statements that are pretty meaningless until you start
backing them up.
You talk about conservatives always having excuses and not taking
responsibility for their actions. Got any specifics you'd care to discuss?
Perhaps you would like to discuss the idiocy of the left, constantly
attempting to limit the rights of citizens to own guns and ammo, yet
never addressing the real problem, that being criminals?
Some how, fighting terrorism and the spread of
radical islam doesn't strike me as unjust and
illogical. Of course, it's easy to say when one
is in the USA, and not seeing first hand the
terror victims. That changed on 9/11 and in Boston
when the Boston Marathon bombing occured on US
My experience is that conservatives are the ones
who do take responsibility, and try to do better.
The lack of responsibility has been from the left,
from what I see.
Perhaps you could give one logical reason why Iraq was picked for the 'war'
on terrorism because of 911.
The only one I could come up with was that Sadam threatened W's father.
Stupid war that costs us way too many lives and it was not even with the
Ineffective and an ignorant and arrogant act by our Country
Jeez, how long is the left going to blame Bush for all the problems in
this country? How much money, how many jobs, and how many still
unemployed has this administration cost this country. Lives ruined,
businesses shut down, people out of work for years. So, where's the
Almost eight years later, it's still the Bush Recession. Remember those
awful 5% unemployment numbers? Now, in the Obama Recovery, we're up to
20% or so U-6 unemployment numbers. What progress. And food stamps, lets
talk about food stamps.
The U-6 didn't support my statement, so
I went fishing.
I've found the last couple years to be
really economic disaster. When boots on
the ground is seeing a recession, it's
hard to believe the number crunchers who
tell me that things are delightful.
I heard the joke as "two Brazillian..."
U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is
changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment,
the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will
raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone
can be listed as having been jobless.
The move could help economists better measure the severity of the
nation's prolonged economic downturn.
"We realize more and more people are unemployed longer than 99 weeks, so
we need to break it down further," Standish says.
Long-term unemployment has grown markedly over the past few years. The
BLS says the average length of unemployment has increased from 29.4
weeks in November 2009 to 34.5 weeks last month. Nearly 10% of the USA's
15.1 million jobless have been looking for work for two years or more.
Copyright 2011 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Become a member of the USA TODAY community now! User Image
Log in | Become a member What's this?
====================================You really should contact these people, and
tell them to stop lying.
The official unemployment rate is the U-3 and has been since 1994,
before that it was the U-5 which was defined the same way as today's
U-3 rate. Using alternative figures is comparing apples to oranges.
First you say U-6 and use "Alternative Charts" because you liked them
better, and now you use "Long Term Unemployment" because you like it
better. Maybe you should count dead people as unemployed because
pushing up daisies doesn't pay enough?
Still, the official rate is still determined the same way it has been
for a very long time - so I stand by my statement about Burford's
Now, Jim Clifton, chairman and CEO of the respected Gallup polling
organization, has written a blistering broadside on the devious way
President Obama’s Department of Labor defines its monthly job numbers,
calling it “the big lie.”
The numbers do not count millions of Americans who want and need
full-time jobs but are not defined as among the unemployed. That, as Mr.
Clifton knows well, remains the chief reason why the jobless rate has
Mr. Obama’s claim of a robust jobless rate takes no account of the
record 92.9 million Americans no longer in the labor force. The labor
participation rate was 62.7 percent in December, a 38-year low that
recalled the “economic malaise” of the Carter presidency.
The administration’s jobless-rate claims fool no one beyond the Beltway,
and certainly not Jim Clifton, the president and CEO of the Gallup
polling organization. Mr. Clifton calls the 5.6 percent unemployment
rate “the Big Lie.” Chastising mainstream media and Wall Street for
“cheerleading for this number,” he says it’s “extremely misleading.”
Here are some more liars for you to contact.
Might want to contact these people:
And tell them they are wrong (quote below)
What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn’t capture all of
the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The
employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age
population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well
below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate
since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of
people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.
Yet another apples to oranges comparison.
From your previous attempt:
"The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the
unemployment rate is computed . . ."
From this one:
"Though Hall now works for the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank
at George Mason University partially funded by the billionaire Koch
Brothers (Charles Koch sits on its board), he is not suggesting that
the BLS is cooking the books, as Jack Welch and other conservatives
People sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job are not,
nor have they been previously, part of the official figure. He wishes
it were so, but it just isn't - and hasn't been.
From a link in that article:
"Hall confirms that the jobless rate that makes the headlines — called
the U-3 by BLS — doesn’t take into account people who have stopped
looking for work but does count as employed folks who have worked as
little as an hour during the preceding month.
A broader (and more accurate) measure of the state of US labor — called
U-6, which includes the underemployed — jumped sharply in June to 14.3
percent from 13.8 percent the month before."
Yep, apples and oranges and if wishes was fishes we'd all castinet
So, my statement about Burford's lie still stands.
It is true that once a city (Country) is burned down, it takes a long time
to rebuild it.
Yes, much longer than 8 yrs, a hell of a lot longer than Bush and Cheney and
the Right Wingers predicted how long the Iraq War would take.
Bush lit the match, and let it 'burn' and 'burn' and 'burn'.
Even during the 2008 election process, it was strongly asked, why would
anybody want to be the President since the Economy is tanking SO badly.
Course, right wingers would have still been blaming Clinton (many yrs more
than the 8 you mentioned) if Mc Cain had been elected.
Like I said before, the right wing almost never takes responsibility for its
actions, if they don't turn out well.
Have more right wingers or left wingers have served in the military in the
last 20 yrs?
Put your head back in the 'sand'.
The unemployment rate
Shot up with the Oh Bomb Us style of running the country.
Why would right wingers serve in a liberal military, run by
liberals? From what I've heard of "rules of (not) engagement"
it's pretty much suicide to go into combat zones. With the
rules and policies stacked against you so severely.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.