Happy Armed Forces Day to all who Honorably Serve

Page 3 of 4  
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

Typical right wing answer. We want our rights and will start wars, but 'our' kind will not serve in the military on the front lines. It is suicide to go into combat zones, so let others do that, not us.
--
Buffalo


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:29:47 -0600
yep, more leftists/liberals/democrats doing as they please, when they please.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/25/dc-attorney-general-ignores-court-order-refuses-gun-permits/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2016 4:01 PM, Buffalo wrote:

And why is it that you never take responsibility for what the left does? You do nothing but complain about the past. Seems it's about time for obama and his minions to own the problems they've created over the last 8 years, all by themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2016 4:01 PM, Buffalo wrote:

Do you just throw crap out there to see if it will stick? Can you even answer your own questions? Are you aware that the answer to your question can be easily found by using Google?
The answer to your question is more republicans have served in the military than democrats. Military veterans are more likely to vote republican than democrat.
Here's one example.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2016 2:51 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

The problem with the unemployment numbers is that they're wrong. They don't take into account people who have simply given up and stopped looking for work and they don't account for people who are under employed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SeaNymph formulated on Friday :

What you are actually saying here is that you think that they're using the wrong algorithm. The numbers themselves are good. As long as we compare numbers from the same agreed upon algorithm, the results can be compared apples to apples. Doing otherwise and and making the other side look like they are fudging with the numbers is just lying, and both camps do it to manipulate public opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 7:59 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

What I'm saying is that I do not think "unemployment numbers" give an accurate accounting of the millions of people who are currently unemployed or under employed.
I don't care who's spouting the numbers, I don't see them as being a realistic representation of what's really happening.
If that means they're using the wrong algorithm, so be it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After serious thinking SeaNymph wrote :

That depends upon which algorithm you use.
You said above:
"They don't take into account people who have simply given up and stopped looking for work and they don't account for people who are under employed."
Although the U-6 algorithm does almost exactly that. If a person doesn't look for work because he or she just plain doesn't *want* to work for no particular reason - they should not be included in the numbers anyway.

IMO there is no 'wrong algorithm' - the problem is two people arguing while using *different* algorithms, and someone suggesting that someone else (like Obama in this case) has changed the meaning of the numbers when the truth is that the same algorithms have been in use for a very long time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 10:56 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

There are, imo, probably millions of people who simply cannot find work in their fields. Those people usually end up being under employed, or just unemployed. Many no longer have any benefits to draw on.
The fact remains that a percentage, which is usually shown as the unemployment number is simply not an accurate depiction of the current state of things in the here and now. I believe the number I keep hearing is something along the lines of 92 million working age people not working. I find that staggering.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 12:56 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

This article provides a quite reasonable description of what the 92 million actually means, and I think it makes sense.
However, 20+ million people out of work is still pretty grim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 1:00 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

Oopss...here the link. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SeaNymph laid this down on his screen :

Yes, I think that is more realistic. Also, if you look at the graphs for each of the U-(pick a number) figures over the last sixteen years, they all seem to tell the same story, Obama took office and the numbers rose quickly and then gradually worked their way down to just above the numbers for the previous administration.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u1.jsp
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 3:36 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

So, he screwed everything up and then it fixed itself? That seems to be what happened. 20+ million people out of work, or under employed is, imo, too many.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2016 5:58 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

|| || || [christmas presents]
Long past time to trim some trailing text.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27-May-16 6:56 PM, SeaNymph wrote: [....]

Are YOU still of "working age", Linda?
--
David B.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David B used his keyboard to write :

I am, and I'm not working, so that's 92 million and one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27-May-16 7:28 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

I asked because when SeaNymph first came to the Scorched-Earth group she was unemployed (and so was her husband). I seem to recall that she was too old to find a job even way back then, but perhaps I am mistaken. As far as I'm aware she has not worked since that time.
As for you, Rafters, you mentioned the other day that your ailments had pretty much cleared up (GREAT news indeed). Does that mean that you might consider a return to work should a suitable position present itself?
--
David B.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David B explained :

You asked about my hands and feet (poorly paws) but that isn't my current problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28-May-16 11:15 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Oh, dear! Do you want to talk about it? Here, or by email?
Whatever, I'm saddened to learn you have a problem. :-(
--
David B.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David B presented the following explanation :

I've told you several times, and even gave you a URL describing psoriatic disease. Have you forgotten already?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    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.