Fox News post debate coverage

Margin Call wrote:You should read board's post again.

Why don't you? Gaining back lost jobs is not net growth and net growth is essentially stagnant with new entries to the job market. And let's not forget that insidious "underemployment" factor driving down disposable income. I'll be kind and ignore the millions who exited the job market due to loss of confidence or abject despair and are not counted. But you probably know all that.

nochain wrote:Sorry to disappoint you.

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Sorry to disappoint you.

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

About as in-depth as you read mine - but in the big scheme of things, it just doesn't matter what either of us thinks does it? Fact of the matter is unemployment is still sky high - what, 7.8% of the labor force right now? With a big assist from those kind enough to stop looking in the last 4 weeks.....

But everything is "improving" - right?

You sure set the bar low for defining improvement.

Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

nochain wrote:About as in-depth as you read mine - but in the big scheme of things, it just doesn't matter what either of us thinks does it? Fact of the matter is unemployment is still sky high - what, 7.8% of the labor force right now? With a big assist from those kind enough to stop looking in the last 4 weeks.....

But everything is "improving" - right?

You sure set the bar low for defining improvement.

I asked you if you read my post because your response clearly indicates that you didn't. It was a rhetorical question. You basically responded to something that I never said or implied.

Another point worth mentioning is that it seems as if any time you stray outside your usual animated smilies and instead try and wade into the realm of facts, you show yourself to be completely out to lunch.

For example: Here you are saying that the recent unemployment numbers were helped out by "those kind enough to stop looking in the last 4 weeks". You are essentially implying that people dropped out of the workforce and that is why the unemployment rate fell. In reality, the exact opposite occurred:

Here is the relevant data from the employment situation release.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Have a look at the "Not in labor force" line. You will see that that number actually fell by 211,000. This means that reality is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming here. Next, have a look at the civilian labor force. It increased by 418,000. Again, the exact opposite of what you are saying. Now have a look at the participation rate. It increased by 0.1%. Again, the exact opposite of what you are saying. Now, granted, workers have become discouraged and have dropped out of the labor force all together over the course of this recession, though that certainly isn't what happened in the last employment situation release.

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

Without flood control, posters will game the reputation system.

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

Without flood control, posters will game the reputation system.

God knows we cant have that! You can call each other dumbasses, whores and cunts but God forbid we game the reputation system.

Gunz wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

Without flood control, posters will game the reputation system.

God knows we cant have that! You can call each other dumbasses, whores and cunts but God forbid we game the reputation system.

Gunz wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

Without flood control, posters will game the reputation system.

God knows we cant have that! You can call each other dumbasses, whores and cunts but God forbid we game the reputation system.

Let's not forget you and your sheep avatar. We have a whole new perspective on you.

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

boards did that so I couldnt get to many pos votes, right after he brought his sock in and took away my high pos reputation twice.

Gunz wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

Without flood control, posters will game the reputation system.

God knows we cant have that! You can call each other dumbasses, whores and cunts but God forbid we game the reputation system.

shhssss its ok to game the reputation system as log as you dont do it for chrissy

gotta know the strict rules around here mange

Rogue wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

boards did that so I couldnt get to many pos votes, right after he brought his sock in and took away my high pos reputation twice.

Yes, Boards knew how smart you were and was jealous!

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Dammit, I hate the flood control on this forum!

boards did that so I couldnt get to many pos votes, right after he brought his sock in and took away my high pos reputation twice.

Yes, Boards knew how smart you were and was jealous!

well boards knows im smarter than you and that about it.

i was getting bump up and it made him angry, so he got on his sockand fixed it,

now my fan seems to be focusing on you think its gnna agravate me lol

ive learned that I dont care, because if i care about that, I may cange how I post. and I dont want that. I just want to be ME