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.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:29:47 -0600
yep, more leftists/liberals/democrats doing
as they please, when they please.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.