PDA

View Full Version : Economics Under Obama: 30 Worst Months of Employment in the Past 25 Years


mikey23545
06-14-2012, 12:36 PM
Under Obama: 30 Worst Months of Employment in the Past 25 Years
8:05 AM, May 23, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

The federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes monthly tallies for the employment-population ratio. That stat shows something rather straightforward: Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed? (The bureau excludes those who are under 16 years old, are active-duty military, or are — in the bureau’s own words — “inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged),” from its tallies.)

Over the past quarter of a century (a total of 300 months), dating back to May 1987 and the Reagan administration, here are the 30 worst months (that is, the bottom 10 percent) for the employment-population ratio, along with the president who happened to be in office at that particular time (scroll down to the see the list):

1. (tie) July 2011, 58.2 percent, President Barack Obama
1. (tie) June 2011, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) November 2010, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) December 2009, 58.2 percent, Obama
5. (tie) August 2011, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) December 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) October 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2012, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) October 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) September 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) May 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) February 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) January 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) December 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) September 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) August 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) July 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) June 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) February 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) October 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
29. February 2012, 58.6 percent, Obama
30. (tie) May 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) April 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) September 2009, 58.7 percent, Obama

Interestingly, the 30 (or 32, including ties) worst months for employment in the past 25 years have all come after the most recent recession ended, in June 2009. In other words, they’ve all come during the Obama “recovery.”

What’s more, under every other president during the past 25 years (spanning from the later stages of the Reagan presidency through the entire George W. Bush presidency), the employment-population ratio was always over 60 percent — every single month, for 260 consecutive months. In vivid contrast, with the exception of the month in which he took office (January 2009) and his first full month in office (February 2009), the employment-population ratio under Obama has always been under 60 percent — every single month, for 38 consecutive months. (For 32 consecutive months — from September 2009 to the present day — it’s been under 59 percent.)

In fact, the worst non-Obama month in the past 25 years was December 2008, when the employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent under George W. Bush. Comparatively, Obama’s best month to date (not counting January 2009, when he entered midstream) was his first, February 2009, when the employment-population ratio was 60.3 percent. In other words, over the past 25 years, the worst month under any other president has beaten the best month under Obama. LMAO


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/under-obama-30-worst-months-employment-past-25-years_645771.html

Amnorix
06-14-2012, 02:18 PM
I honestly could have predicted this the day before the 2008 election. It was obvious that the economy was going to go into a very serious tailspin, and that we were in for very, VERY difficult economic times.

I even specifically stated that it might be better for the Democrats to lose the 2008 election so that the full blame of the inevitable disastrous economy would fall solely on Republicans, since whoever won in 2008 was more than likely to be a one-term President given how long it would likely take for the economy to recover.

The "worst non-Obama month of the past 25 years was December 2008". i.e. the month before Obama took office -- that's neither surprising nor coincidental. It's in fact evidence of the direction the economy was already heading PRIOR to him taking office.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 02:29 PM
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.


signed, cosmo20002, Amnorix, Direckshun, jAZ, Pittsie...et al

LMAO

King_Chief_Fan
06-14-2012, 02:32 PM
I honestly could have predicted this the day before the 2008 election. It was obvious that the economy was going to go into a very serious tailspin, and that we were in for very, VERY difficult economic times.

I even specifically stated that it might be better for the Democrats to lose the 2008 election so that the full blame of the inevitable disastrous economy would fall solely on Republicans, since whoever won in 2008 was more than likely to be a one-term President given how long it would likely take for the economy to recover.

The "worst non-Obama month of the past 25 years was December 2008". i.e. the month before Obama took office -- that's neither surprising nor coincidental. It's in fact evidence of the direction the economy was already heading PRIOR to him taking office.

in other words....see mikey23545 post

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 02:35 PM
"Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed?"

I see what you did there--you took the usual stat that is historically used and everyone refers to (the unemployment rate, which in general is a measure of people seeking but not finding work)--and instead used a more obscure hybrid stat of people who are "free to pursue" a job but are not, which would include retirees, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, full-time students, etc.

Its the kind of stat a hyper-partisan publication would embrace because it looks bad, but one would actually have to pay attention to notice that it isn't what it seems.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 02:35 PM
The "worst non-Obama month of the past 25 years was December 2008". i.e. the month before Obama took office -- that's neither surprising nor coincidental. It's in fact evidence of the direction the economy was already heading PRIOR to him taking office.

And Obama so effectively turned it around.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 02:52 PM
"Among those who are living in America and are free to pursue employment, what percentage are employed?"

I see what you did there--you took the usual stat that is historically used and everyone refers to (the unemployment rate, which in general is a measure of people seeking but not finding work)--and instead used a more obscure hybrid stat of people who are "free to pursue" a job but are not, which would include retirees, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, full-time students, etc.

Its the kind of stat a hyper-partisan publication would embrace because it looks bad, but one would actually have to pay attention to notice that it isn't what it seems.

Spin away, Orange...LMAO

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 02:53 PM
And Obama so effectively turned it around.

That is correct. It is much better than it was. You're catching on.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 02:58 PM
That is correct. It is much better than it was. You're catching on.

You are pretty much out of touch with reality.

1. (tie) July 2011, 58.2 percent, President Barack Obama
1. (tie) June 2011, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) November 2010, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) December 2009, 58.2 percent, Obama
5. (tie) August 2011, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) December 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) October 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2012, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) October 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) September 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) May 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) February 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) January 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) December 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) September 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) August 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) July 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) June 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) February 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) October 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
29. February 2012, 58.6 percent, Obama
30. (tie) May 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) April 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) September 2009, 58.7 percent, Obama


Which part of this is better? If you might notice the numbers get larger as time marches on.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 02:58 PM
Spin away, Orange...LMAO

Your OP was spin. Mine is absolutely correct. "Free to pursue employment" may be interesting as a sociology statistic, but it does not give an accurate indication of who wants to work but can't. I would imagine that as the boomer generation continues to age and retire, these numbers will rise, since able-to-work retirees would be counted as "unemployed."

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 02:59 PM
Spin away, Orange...LMAO

Is he wrong? Because to me it looks like he just called your bluff.

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 03:01 PM
Also, i'd like to see those numbers under the Bush administration to see if the country was already in decline when Obama took over. IIRC, it was.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 03:04 PM
You are pretty much out of touch with reality.

Which part of this is better? If you might notice the numbers get larger as time marches on.

The stat does not measure people who are seeking work but can't find a job. It measures everyone from full-time college students, stay-at-home moms, retirees, and even 95-year-old little old ladies who aren't trying to find a job and lumping them all together.

I would imagine the numbers will continue to get larger in coming years because a massive amount of the population--baby boomers--are right at retirement age.

King_Chief_Fan
06-14-2012, 03:04 PM
Also, i'd like to see those numbers under the Bush administration to see if the country was already in decline when Obama took over. IIRC, it was.

Bush's fault

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-rove-bush-economy/2012/06/14/id/442304?s=al&promo_code=F2FC-1

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 03:12 PM
Bush's fault

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-rove-bush-economy/2012/06/14/id/442304?s=al&promo_code=F2FC-1

Blah blah blah. All i see is the childish finger pointing that litters American Politics, just like the OP. Where are the numbers? All i wanna know is if there was a steady decline during the Bush admin before Obama took over.

Please spare me the headache of yet another fluff piece.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 03:13 PM
It is truly part of the right-wing DNA to try to mislead. You see it over and over with the politicians who spout off deceptive and outright false claims, and you constantly see it on this board with people posting articles and stats that aren't what the poster claims, seemingly hoping that no one will actually read the article.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 03:16 PM
Blah blah blah. All i see is the childish finger pointing that litters American Politics, just like the OP. Where are the numbers? All i wanna know is if there was a steady decline during the Bush admin before Obama took over.

Please spare me the headache of yet another fluff piece.

Fluff? The article is by Karl Rove. He a completely neutral source regarding W and surely can be relied on to give an honest opinion regarding W's performance.

stevieray
06-14-2012, 03:16 PM
It is truly part of the right-wing DNA to try to mislead. You see it over and over with the politicians who spout off deceptive and outright false claims, and you constantly see it on this board with people posting articles and stats that aren't what the poster claims, seemingly hoping that no one will actually read the article.

tool...LMAO

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 03:19 PM
tool

Wrong thread. The Romney is a tool thread is here:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=260496

Feel free to join in. It's pretty easy.

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 03:24 PM
tool...LMAO

But he's right. That's what you should be laughing about.

Look, i dont give a shit if you're a Dem or a Rep, in my honest opinion, both parties are full of shit, and the cronies who regurgitate these CLEARLY dishonest articles as if they were gospel are equally full of shit.

Cosmo laid it out pretty damn well. "Free to pursue employment" is a pretty ****ing wide umbrella. Where is the accurate rebuttal?

So far, all of you Reps have been able to do is name call and fluff.

As i've been peeking in the DC sub forum more and more, i've found that to be a pretty common occurrence.

I'm not trying to pick sides; I have no affiliation with either.

Merely calling a horse a horse.

alpha_omega
06-14-2012, 03:24 PM
I don't see a problem with the stats...the author clearly defines exactly what they are.

stevieray
06-14-2012, 03:38 PM
But he's right. That's what you should be laughing about.

Look, i dont give a shit if you're a Dem or a Rep, in my honest opinion, both parties are full of shit, and the cronies who regurgitate these CLEARLY dishonest articles as if they were gospel are equally full of shit.

Cosmo laid it out pretty damn well. "Free to pursue employment" is a pretty ****ing wide umbrella. Where is the accurate rebuttal?

So far, all of you Reps have been able to do is name call and fluff.

As i've been peeking in the DC sub forum more and more, i've found that to be a pretty common occurrence.

I'm not trying to pick sides; I have no affiliation with either.

Merely calling a horse a horse.

LMAO

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 03:40 PM
I don't see a problem with the stats...the author clearly defines exactly what they are.

What makes the stats "The Worst" as they are labelled? It is largely people not working and not seeking work--for a whole multitude of reasons. A large portion is going to be made up of retirees, full-time students and the elderly. Is their not seeking work a "bad" thing?

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 03:42 PM
LMAO

Yep, just as i thought.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:50 PM
Also, i'd like to see those numbers under the Bush administration to see if the country was already in decline when Obama took over. IIRC, it was.

It was in decline, but with the new guy promising Hope and Change what we got was further unemployment.

I wish I could have recorded what i heard on the radio this morning. Obama said that things were so screwed up by Bush that he couldn't do anything about it.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 03:54 PM
The stat does not measure people who are seeking work but can't find a job. It measures everyone from full-time college students, stay-at-home moms, retirees, and even 95-year-old little old ladies who aren't trying to find a job and lumping them all together.

I would imagine the numbers will continue to get larger in coming years because a massive amount of the population--baby boomers--are right at retirement age.ROFL

That is the funniest joke I've ever heard. Where do you get your stuff?

Tell me this cusmo, Why would the Obama administration cook the numbers in that manner? He has always NOT counted the terminally unemployed in the numbers so the unemployment rate looks better. When someone falls out of the extended unemployment roles they stop counting them, some of those are people that just gave up.

Detoxing
06-14-2012, 04:18 PM
It was in decline, but with the new guy promising Hope and Change what we got was further unemployment.

I wish I could have recorded what i heard on the radio this morning. Obama said that things were so screwed up by Bush that he couldn't do anything about it.

Figured it would be somewhere in between.

The Reps want me to believe the Economy fell off a cliff as soon as Obama took over and it had nothing to do with Bush. Lie.

The Dems want me to believe it was mostly Bush's fault and they're stuck with the hand they were dealt. Also a lie.

Lie lie lie.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 04:26 PM
Figured it would be somewhere in between.

The Reps want me to believe the Economy fell off a cliff as soon as Obama took over and it had nothing to do with Bush. Lie.

The Dems want me to believe it was mostly Bush's fault and they're stuck with the hand they were dealt. Also a lie.

Lie lie lie.

I think the biggest lie was Hope and Change. There is no hope and what has changed has been for the worse. Why do people let him get away with the magic wand answer "Bush's fault" when there is a problem. I've never heard the word inherited so many times in my life!

If Obama was so good why did he not get things done when he had the majority in the house and in the Senate? Could it be that even the liberals in both groups saw what kind of shit he was up to?

With the next president, or the extension of the mistake, I just want whomever is in office to stop the bullshit and get the country back on track. I don't honestly see Obama making that commitment.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 06:01 PM
ROFL

That is the funniest joke I've ever heard. Where do you get your stuff?

Tell me this cusmo, Why would the Obama administration cook the numbers in that manner? He has always NOT counted the terminally unemployed in the numbers so the unemployment rate looks better. When someone falls out of the extended unemployment roles they stop counting them, some of those are people that just gave up.

Cooking the books? What are you talking about? The administration hasn't changed anything about the way these things are measured.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 06:06 PM
Cooking the books? What are you talking about? The administration hasn't changed anything about the way these things are measured.ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Get real. Wake up and smell the pile of shit in the WH.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 06:10 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Get real. Wake up and smell the pile of shit in the WH.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 06:37 PM
Hey cumsmo, your shit is no longer accepted. ESD

Aries Walker
06-14-2012, 07:17 PM
Since we're talking statistics . . .

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4edfe187eab8eaab3600001b/chart-unemployment-rate-and-jobs-added-during-the-great-recession-dec-7-2011.jpg

(From Business Insider, Jan. 23 of this year, article here (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-one-unemployment-rate-jobs-chart-obama-will-use-to-win-reelection-2011-12).)

Notice in this chart how the Unemployment rate was climbing, and the Jobs Added stat was in free-fall, when Bush left office, and how both stats have leveled off by the end of Obama's first year. Then notice the directions in which they have been heading since; this directly contradicts Romney's repeated claims that Obama has "made it worse" - actually, it's getting better.

However, look at it a different way: Unemployment has risen from about 7.5% to about 8.5% under Obama's watch. This is the kind of statistic that the anti-Obamas love to recite, but it alone does not tell the whole story. If you look at that whole story - the inevitable dip and the following recovery - you'll see, again, it's getting better.

Bill Parcells
06-14-2012, 07:37 PM
Also, i'd like to see those numbers under the Bush administration to see if the country was already in decline when Obama took over. IIRC, it was.

But he did nothing to turn it around. he made it worse. I thought Bush was the absolute worst. even a janitor could do a better job? it appears not.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 07:43 PM
Since we're talking statistics . . .

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4edfe187eab8eaab3600001b/chart-unemployment-rate-and-jobs-added-during-the-great-recession-dec-7-2011.jpg

(From Business Insider, Jan. 23 of this year, article here (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-one-unemployment-rate-jobs-chart-obama-will-use-to-win-reelection-2011-12).)

Notice in this chart how the Unemployment rate was climbing, and the Jobs Added stat was in free-fall, when Bush left office, and how both stats have leveled off by the end of Obama's first year. Then notice the directions in which they have been heading since; this directly contradicts Romney's repeated claims that Obama has "made it worse" - actually, it's getting better.

However, look at it a different way: Unemployment has risen from about 7.5% to about 8.5% under Obama's watch. This is the kind of statistic that the anti-Obamas love to recite, but it alone does not tell the whole story. If you look at that whole story - the inevitable dip and the following recovery - you'll see, again, it's getting better.

One other little tidbit for the small government crowd. One thing dragging down Obama's overall numbers and spiking the unemployment rate is the loss of public sector/government jobs. One of the things propping up (if you can call it that) W's numbers are the large amount of public sector jobs W added.

So, as you celebrate the high unemployment rate (you know you are), be sure to thank Obama for reducing the government jobs you hate so much.

mlyonsd
06-14-2012, 07:54 PM
Obama has lost independents. He's in trouble.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 08:31 PM
Obama has lost independents. He's in trouble.

I won't say he has a large portion of the black vote, but I've heard more prominent black commentary about the mistake that was made in 2008.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 08:44 PM
But he did nothing to turn it around. he made it worse. I thought Bush was the absolute worst. even a janitor could do a better job? it appears not.

Well, other than reversing the job losses, negative GDP 'growth', stock market...

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 09:28 PM
cusmo, you are still a stupid fucker.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 09:34 PM
cusmo, you are still a stupid ****er.

Wow, someone is throwing a bit of a tantrum. Iz is 'on tilt.'

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:11 PM
Nothing has changed, cosmo you are still a stupid fucker.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 10:14 PM
Nothing has changed, cosmo you are still a stupid ****er.

Tilt-Tilt-Tilt

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:39 PM
Nothing has changed, cosmo you are still a stupid ****er.

Aries Walker
06-14-2012, 11:29 PM
Okay, the sudden formatting change made me chuckle.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 11:43 PM
Okay, the sudden formatting change made me chuckle.

Slow day, had nothing better to do.

J Diddy
06-15-2012, 01:09 AM
Slow day, had nothing better to do.

For a guy who you dismiss as stupid, you sure do give him a lot of time.

For some reason, the scene in Safehouse (I've only seen this in previews) where Denzel says, "I'm already in your head," comes to mind.

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 05:25 AM
For a guy who you dismiss as stupid, you sure do give him a lot of time.

For some reason, the scene in Safehouse (I've only seen this in previews) where Denzel says, "I'm already in your head," comes to mind.

If you say so, but it goes both ways. He seeks out any post I make and pulls the shame stupid shit. My responses are cut and paste. Control C and Control V, enter. Not much time involved, but have it your way.

patteeu
06-15-2012, 07:30 AM
Figured it would be somewhere in between.

The Reps want me to believe the Economy fell off a cliff as soon as Obama took over and it had nothing to do with Bush. Lie.

The Dems want me to believe it was mostly Bush's fault and they're stuck with the hand they were dealt. Also a lie.

Lie lie lie.

I don't think it's fair to blame Obama for the economic conditions he encountered on his first day in office. I think he should be sent home in disgrace this fall for his utter failure to do something about it in the past 3.5 years. He had commanding majorities in both houses of Congress his first two years no less. If we re-elect him after seeing his performance we will have no one to blame but ourselves when he gives a speech in January 2017 telling us how he has finally gotten everything lined up for the next President to really have a chance to start getting the economy turned around. No thanks.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2012, 07:41 AM
Amazing thread.

Amnorix
06-15-2012, 10:08 AM
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.



Actually I never have, and don't now, entirely blame Bush for the economic collapse around 2008. I've stated many, MANY times that MANY are to blame.

cosmo20002
06-15-2012, 10:46 AM
If you say so, but it goes both ways. He seeks out any post I make and pulls the shame stupid shit.

I don't seek them out. They are just there.

pulls the shame stupid shit = he asks what my opinions are based on and to back up some of the factual assertions I make

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 11:00 AM
Cosmo is still a stupid shit.

Brock
06-15-2012, 11:02 AM
I see Tom has reverted back to his usual Christian personality. just like clockwork.

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 11:09 AM
I see Tom has reverted back to his usual Christian personality. just like clockwork.?