Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 162 of 162

Thread: What Does AOC Have That Boebert Does Not?

  1. #151 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by America View Post
    No. Republicans put words into her mouth and they twist what she says.

    I mean, aren't you the party who voted for a POTUS who says he loves the uneducated?

    Lol.
    There is no room for words in her mouth

  2. #152 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Dutch,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    The Qless, be they elected or not, will not do well when this all comes down.

    Anyone who supported the overthrow of the US government, either physically or materially, will be crushed and either sent to prison or the poor house.
    Either that or slip back into obscurity. Extremism belongs on the fringes, summarily ignored and left out of main stream America.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #153 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Walt,

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There are different pieces of advice, depending on how prevalent guns are. In situations where there are not many guns, they tell you to keep your hands behind your back, and stay calm when confronted by the police. In situations where there are many guns, you keep your hands visible, and stay calm. AOC did the wise thing, and got a $50 fine. The trump supporters broke into government buildings, and beat police officers with metal fire extinguishers... That is the wrong way to interact with police, and got them a few years in prison.
    It's a pretty twisted line of reasoning that leads extremists to believe attacking American law enforcement at the American Capitol was the best thing for America.

    Placing people like that in prison sets the correct example of what America really stands for.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Walt (09-30-2022)

  5. #154 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,574
    Thanks
    46,725
    Thanked 68,570 Times in 51,893 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch,

    Either that or slip back into obscurity. Extremism belongs on the fringes, summarily ignored and left out of main stream America.
    A lot of it depends upon the coming body count. If a lot of Americans end up murdered by Trumpers/WSEs, Americans will want justice by mounting a similar number of heads from the murderers on spikes for all to see.

    I have no sympathy for these clowns:

    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  6. #155 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    A lot of it depends upon the coming body count. If a lot of Americans end up murdered by Trumpers/WSEs, Americans will want justice by mounting a similar number of heads from the murderers on spikes for all to see.

    I have no sympathy for these clowns:

    A little too graphic for me. I'll settle for the convicted doing time.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Doc Dutch (09-30-2022)

  8. #156 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,574
    Thanks
    46,725
    Thanked 68,570 Times in 51,893 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    A little too graphic for me. I'll settle for the convicted doing time.
    Executing the villains is a sure thing.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  9. #157 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I give you links to the actual entities that do the reports and then you give links to investipedia? I'll stick with the Bureau of Labor and their description of how they calculate unemployment and where they state why no one should use their numbers they way you are. They aren't "census" questions since the Census Bureau has nothing to do with the monthly unemployment numbers. Most people in the know don't just look at the U3 numbers even though those are the number most reported by the media. Do you even know what that U6 unemployment is compared to the U3? By the way investopedia supports my claim about discouraged workers which is in direct contradiction of your claim, "I think you would be hard pressed to actually find people who "just stopped looking for work" as our MSM has periodically stated in the last few decades."

    Everyone uses the numbers. Everyone with any sense knows that the numbers are different and can't be used interchangeably. An increase in unemployment claims doesn't mean that that unemployment rate is going up since unemployment doesn't count discouraged workers. Your previous statements show you don't know much about how anyone uses the unemployment numbers. I have been using them for over 20 years. I see you don't want to be educated because you are convinced you know more than anyone else. Good luck with that in life.
    the Investopedia site gave links within the article presented to actual DOL & BLS sites, so stop acting as if the article is all opinion and no fact. But it's interesting that you suddenly claim that the article supports your premise after you disparage it. You can't have it both ways.

    When all is said and done, you just keep repeating your original assertion, maintaining that all information is so separate that what I put forth has no relevance regarding accuracy. The FACT remains that people who exhaust their benefits cannot be quantified as to whether they've been rehired somewhere when the "official" reports come out that unemployment is down. And AGAIN, one person holding 3 jobs does not mean 3 separate people are employed. Matters of fact & history that all your juggling and repetition cannot get past.

    But lord knows you'll keep repeating yourself as if it will magically come true. Carry on.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  10. #158 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    There you go again, trying to combine the different reports on employment to say that one is skewed BECAUSE of another one. No such thing can happen in the real world for people that actually understand what each report says. You keep claiming the numbers of employed as reported by businesses. There is no report by "BUSINESS" that says who is employed. You are making up a report that doesn't exist in the real world. ADP is not reporting on its employees. It is reporting on the payrolls of the business that use ADP. That is then used as a basis to estimate the rest of the business that don't use ADP. There is no report by businesses of the number of people they employ!!! That is your made up nonsense.

    The IRS does NOT have the records of how many jobs one actually has. The IRS has the record of how many jobs are withholding taxes. That is not the same thing as the number of jobs one has. I could work 100 jobs for cash and the IRS would never know that I had those jobs.


    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Are you willing to educate yourself on U5 and U6?

    FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wo...srecordkeeping

    It's all part of the equation, Ricky. And they are NOT making the distinction of 1 person holding 3 separate jobs....the IRS does that, but strangely the IRS is NOT put in the equation when gauging the employment/unemployment situation.

    You stupidly point out that paid in cash with no official records doesn't hit the IRS records. No kidding? Are you not pointing out a flaw in stats based on (GASP!) official records logged? Could that mean there are more people employed than the system leads to believe? Does that not throw things off? And if you accept this as fact, they WTF are you so damned desperate to deny the flaw in counting jobs filled when you have one person doing multiple jobs.?

    And as to your last link: numbers determined by those who sign up and qualify for UI and when those benefits end. However, how do they determine "discouraged workers", as I never came across such a question from the person assigned to me. You don't present evidence that you are working, you don't get the insurance, but as YOU so readily pointed out, people can get paid "off the books" and be employed. They don't report that income to the IRS, they're not on UI. So the numbers are OFF. So we're dealing in guess work. And since this muddle presents these gray areas, my pointing out a 3 job person being counted by each separate business officially (1099 form, if I got the number write), but in reality 3 individual people are not working that job.

    Keep it coming, Ricky. Your insipid stubbornness on this matter just keeps making my point.
    Last edited by Taichiliberal; 09-30-2022 at 07:15 PM.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  11. #159 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,985 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 635 Times in 603 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    the Investopedia site gave links within the article presented to actual DOL & BLS sites, so stop acting as if the article is all opinion and no fact. But it's interesting that you suddenly claim that the article supports your premise after you disparage it. You can't have it both ways.

    When all is said and done, you just keep repeating your original assertion, maintaining that all information is so separate that what I put forth has no relevance regarding accuracy. The FACT remains that people who exhaust their benefits cannot be quantified as to whether they've been rehired somewhere when the "official" reports come out that unemployment is down. And AGAIN, one person holding 3 jobs does not mean 3 separate people are employed. Matters of fact & history that all your juggling and repetition cannot get past.

    But lord knows you'll keep repeating yourself as if it will magically come true. Carry on.
    Investopedia is a secondary source. Why use a secondary source when there is a primary source? My pointing out you are using a source that is not primary doesn't disparage the source, it questions your ability to do research.

    None of the reports are about specific people since the data is anonymous. No one other than you has said that one person holding 3 jobs means that 3 people are employed in any data. The only one dropping all their balls is you. You don't know the first thing about how the reports are created or how they should be used together.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  12. #160 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,985 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 635 Times in 603 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wo...srecordkeeping

    It's all part of the equation, Ricky. And they are NOT making the distinction of 1 person holding 3 separate jobs....the IRS does that, but strangely the IRS is NOT put in the equation when gauging the employment/unemployment situation.

    You stupidly point out that paid in cash with no official records doesn't hit the IRS records. No kidding? Are you not pointing out a flaw in stats based on (GASP!) official records logged? Could that mean there are more people employed than the system leads to believe? Does that not throw things off? And if you accept this as fact, they WTF are you so damned desperate to deny the flaw in counting jobs filled when you have one person doing multiple jobs.?

    And as to your last link: numbers determined by those who sign up and qualify for UI and when those benefits end. However, how do they determine "discouraged workers", as I never came across such a question from the person assigned to me. You don't present evidence that you are working, you don't get the insurance, but as YOU so readily pointed out, people can get paid "off the books" and be employed. They don't report that income to the IRS, they're not on UI. So the numbers are OFF. So we're dealing in guess work. And since this muddle presents these gray areas, my pointing out a 3 job person being counted by each separate business officially (1099 form, if I got the number write), but in reality 3 individual people are not working that job.

    Keep it coming, Ricky. Your insipid stubbornness on this matter just keeps making my point.
    OMFG. You are now being more of an idiot. Clearly you have never been an employer. An employer must keep records of their employees. But that is kept by the employer. It is only checked by the government if there is a dispute with an employee. The only thing the employer shares with the IRS is the employee's name, SS#, their w4 for withholdings and what the employee is paid. The data that the IRS gets is secret by law. They can't share it other than under very restricted circumstances.

    I have never said that any of the counting methods is perfect. They are estimates bases on a statistical analysis except for new and continuing UI claims.

    My link has absolutely nothing to do with the questions people are asked when they file for unemployment. Stop embarrassing liberals by being so stupid. Discouraged workers are part of the questions asked during the household survey. At this point, I guess I need to explain to you what the household survey is. It is what is used to give us the U3 number which is what is referred to as the unemployment rate. But because of the questions they ask they also calculate the U1-U6. U4 includes discouraged workers which if you read the notes will tell you what that people are. Then U5 adds in the discouraged workers and the marginally attached workers. Then U6 adds to that people that are working part time jobs but want full time work. (Read the notes on the link!!)

    No, you didn't get the form correct. A 1099 is filed for work performed by someone that is not an employee. I have to file one for every self employed person that does work for me that earns more than $600.

    I keep telling you this and you keep not understanding it. Business do NOT tell the government how many employees they have. They are not required to do so. They do under certain circumstances such as when the business is part of a government business survey but that is not for calculating employment. In most cases, the question is a range of the number of employees, less than 10, 10-50, etc. Stop making that mistake. I beg you. It makes you look stupid. And that makes the rest of us liberals look stupid by association.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  13. #161 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post

    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    the Investopedia site gave links within the article presented to actual DOL & BLS sites, so stop acting as if the article is all opinion and no fact. But it's interesting that you suddenly claim that the article supports your premise after you disparage it. You can't have it both ways.

    When all is said and done, you just keep repeating your original assertion, maintaining that all information is so separate that what I put forth has no relevance regarding accuracy. The FACT remains that people who exhaust their benefits cannot be quantified as to whether they've been rehired somewhere when the "official" reports come out that unemployment is down. And AGAIN, one person holding 3 jobs does not mean 3 separate people are employed. Matters of fact & history that all your juggling and repetition cannot get past.

    But lord knows you'll keep repeating yourself as if it will magically come true. Carry on.
    Investopedia is a secondary source. Why use a secondary source when there is a primary source? My pointing out you are using a source that is not primary doesn't disparage the source, it questions your ability to do research.

    None of the reports are about specific people since the data is anonymous. No one other than you has said that one person holding 3 jobs means that 3 people are employed in any data. The only one dropping all their balls is you. You don't know the first thing about how the reports are created or how they should be used together.
    Rick, spare us all your BS dodges and repetitions. YOU keep trying to redefine everything to suit your narrative while trying to dodge the simple truths that I laid out. Clearly, your insipid stubbornness is tied up with either some ego thing or your need to stretch this out so the advertisers on this site will see it has an audience. In any event, we've done this dance. No sense is repeating it. You may have the last predictable word.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  14. #162 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,801
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,629 Times in 4,083 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    FYI: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wo...srecordkeeping

    It's all part of the equation, Ricky. And they are NOT making the distinction of 1 person holding 3 separate jobs....the IRS does that, but strangely the IRS is NOT put in the equation when gauging the employment/unemployment situation.

    You stupidly point out that paid in cash with no official records doesn't hit the IRS records. No kidding? Are you not pointing out a flaw in stats based on (GASP!) official records logged? Could that mean there are more people employed than the system leads to believe? Does that not throw things off? And if you accept this as fact, they WTF are you so damned desperate to deny the flaw in counting jobs filled when you have one person doing multiple jobs.?

    And as to your last link: numbers determined by those who sign up and qualify for UI and when those benefits end. However, how do they determine "discouraged workers", as I never came across such a question from the person assigned to me. You don't present evidence that you are working, you don't get the insurance, but as YOU so readily pointed out, people can get paid "off the books" and be employed. They don't report that income to the IRS, they're not on UI. So the numbers are OFF. So we're dealing in guess work. And since this muddle presents these gray areas, my pointing out a 3 job person being counted by each separate business officially (1099 form, if I got the number write), but in reality 3 individual people are not working that job.

    Keep it coming, Ricky. Your insipid stubbornness on this matter just keeps making my point.




    OMFG. You are now being more of an idiot. Clearly you have never been an employer. An employer must keep records of their employees. But that is kept by the employer. It is only checked by the government if there is a dispute with an employee. The only thing the employer shares with the IRS is the employee's name, SS#, their w4 for withholdings and what the employee is paid. The data that the IRS gets is secret by law. They can't share it other than under very restricted circumstances.

    I have never said that any of the counting methods is perfect. They are estimates bases on a statistical analysis except for new and continuing UI claims.

    My link has absolutely nothing to do with the questions people are asked when they file for unemployment. Stop embarrassing liberals by being so stupid. Discouraged workers are part of the questions asked during the household survey. At this point, I guess I need to explain to you what the household survey is. It is what is used to give us the U3 number which is what is referred to as the unemployment rate. But because of the questions they ask they also calculate the U1-U6. U4 includes discouraged workers which if you read the notes will tell you what that people are. Then U5 adds in the discouraged workers and the marginally attached workers. Then U6 adds to that people that are working part time jobs but want full time work. (Read the notes on the link!!)

    No, you didn't get the form correct. A 1099 is filed for work performed by someone that is not an employee. I have to file one for every self employed person that does work for me that earns more than $600.

    I keep telling you this and you keep not understanding it. Business do NOT tell the government how many employees they have. They are not required to do so. They do under certain circumstances such as when the business is part of a government business survey but that is not for calculating employment. In most cases, the question is a range of the number of employees, less than 10, 10-50, etc. Stop making that mistake. I beg you. It makes you look stupid. And that makes the rest of us liberals look stupid by association.
    Spare us all the regurgitation of your previous posts, rick. You keep trying to talk past the FACTS of the linked information I put forth WHICH ARE INTER TWINED. You blather on hoping your myopia will disprove my point. That I provided a link that clearly disproved your red embolden declaration displays your insipid stubbornness. The objective, rational reader sees your folly in the chronology of the posts. That you're having a meltdown and resorting to name calling with your repetition and attempted embellishments through association just demonstrates your inability to disprove my initial point. Time and again you display the "estimates" and lack of information in your examples, then turn-around and state how "accurate" the conclusions are.....but that my observation can't possibly exist.

    Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.

    GMAFB, Rick. Unless the official folk tell it to you in block letters, your brain just goes on auto drive. We've done this dance, and your stumbling on your own feet. You may have the last predictable word.

    P.S. Sorry about the 1099 thing....just finished a tussle with the IRS over old records...THEY OWE ME MONEY! Woo-Hoo!
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

Similar Threads

  1. Boebert & Taylor-Greene
    By BartenderElite in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-03-2022, 11:59 PM
  2. Pelosi To Take Decisive Action Against Lauren Boebert
    By gemini104104 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-08-2021, 07:44 AM
  3. Colorado Paper Apologizes For The Embarrassment That Is Boebert
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2021, 04:30 PM
  4. Lauren Boebert apologizes to Muslims.
    By BattleofHodow in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-27-2021, 12:08 PM
  5. Boebert Reminds Everyone That She's 100% Trash
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-07-2021, 11:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •