IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Looks more like one of your AARP issue mineral-a-day supplements.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know damn well I wouldn't be a member of any left wing group.
Hey Vette...I've found your balls...they're swirling around in your cheerleader Beco's mouth below:
Okay, free beer to the first person who can extrapolate some semblance of educated sense out of the kindergartener logic in the statement above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ment/2011/08/25/gIQAFDTYeJ_story.html?hpid=z5
Hispanics surpassed blacks in 2010 to become the second-largest racial or ethnic group of young adults in America’s colleges, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data.
The number of Hispanic college students ages 18 to 24 rose by a remarkable 24 percent in one year, to 1.8 million, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center. The federal Current Population Survey found 7.7 million white college students in that age group, 1.7 million black students and 800,000 Asian Americans
Don't understand what this has to do with your statement, which has serious logic flaws. Or understand what it has to do with anything at all.
But if you're enjoying yourself posting here, which includes posting whatever you can grab and throw that sticks to the board, then that's really all that matters and I don't want you to do things that don't make you happy.![]()
It is the most common adverb of the Obama years: “unexpectedly.”
● “Sales of U.S. previously owned homes unexpectedly dropped in July,” reported Bloomberg.
● “Manufacturing in the Philadelphia region unexpectedly contracted in August by the most in more than two years as orders plunged and factories shed workers,”reported Bloomberg Businessweek.
● “Consumer spending unexpectedly fell in June,” reported Reuters.
● “Dismal economic data on Thursday pointed to an unexpectedly abrupt slowdown in manufacturing and a pickup in inflation,” reported the New York Times’ business page.
This is just in the past week; hundreds of articles each month note that some new bit of economic data is contrary to the expectations of experts. But the term is starting to become an object of ridicule within the conservative blogosphere as the country endures its third year of hard economic times under President Obama.
Three years after a financial crisis, unemployment has hit painful highs, GDP growth has been sluggish at best, and some predict a “double dip” recession. During this period, the Obama administration and its allies have repeatedly made bold promises about imminent prosperity — from an infamous chart that projected that the stimulus would keep unemployment rate below 8 percent, to the administration’s “Recovery Summer” tour of 2010, to Nancy Pelosi’s prediction that passing Obamacare would create 400,000 jobs “almost immediately,” to the president’s prediction that we would enjoy 3.1 percent growth this year and 4.1 percent growth in 2012 and beyond.
For about three years now, conservative bloggers have chuckled at how frequently the unveiling of bad economic news comes with the adverb “unexpectedly” in media reports. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, Michael Barone, and others have often asked, unexpected to whom?
“I think it’s a combination of cognitive dissonance, the terra nova nature of the post-bubble economy, and a healthy dose of partisanship,” suggests Ed Morrissey, who has blogged about the ubiquitous adverb regularly at HotAir.com.
Perhaps the perpetual surprise reflects a media desire to focus on pockets of growth or prosperity — at least with a Democrat in the White House. In a widely diversified $14 trillion economy, one can almost always find some areas of economic improvement.
Certainly, a media that wanted to paint a more dire portrait of the economy would have no shortage of material to work with. There’s considerable evidence that America’s problems in job creation are much worse than the most widely cited numbers would indicate.
For example, President Obama spent much of the past year touting the number of consecutive months of private-sector job growth that the country had enjoyed. But that boast comes with some asterisks. Traditionally, the population of American workers grows each month, and while economists differ a bit on precisely how many new jobs are needed each month just to keep the unemployment rate stable, it’s often more than the figure Obama cites. The Heritage Foundation puts the figure at 100,000 to 125,000; some argue that any serious reduction of the unemployment rate will require adding 200,000 jobs per month. Only four months out of the past 17 have seen at least 200,000 jobs added; some months of growth have been minimal, such as January 2010, when the economy added 16,000 private-sector jobs,. Nonetheless, like a bloop single keeping a batter’s hitting streak going in baseball, meager months of job growth permit Obama to keep bragging about how many consecutive months he has presided over private-sector job growth.
Obama is lucky that these months of sluggish growth have occurred while a staggering number of Americans have “helped” keep the unemployment rate down by leaving the work force. From February 2001 to February 2009, the American work force grew from 143.7 million people to 154.4 million, an increase of about 10.7 million, or about 89,000 per month. In July 2011, the work force was back down to 153.2 million. For the entirety of the Bush years, the civilian labor-force-participation rate was never lower than 65.8 percent and remained between 66 and 67 percent for almost every month of the two terms. For Obama’s presidency, it debuted at 65.7 percent and has dropped to 63.9 percent, the lowest since July 1983.
If we presume that the country’s 1.1 million “discouraged workers” (who don’t count as officially unemployed because they have stopped looking for work) would like a paying job someday, we can reasonably conclude that the unemployment rate won’t be significantly declining anytime soon; as more unemployed workers are hired, those who have stopped looking for work will start looking again and be added to the official count of the unemployed.
In the business media, some voices do note these hidden jobless. But even then, there’s often a tone of mystery or befuddlement, as if no one ever considered that the government’s primary solution to high unemployment, the stimulus, could fail to achieve its goal.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_war_on_liberal_contradictions.htmlI'm confused (no jokes, please). The Obama administration and the mainstream media really need to work on coordinating their message better. I mean, usually memos and pressers from the White House; the pages of the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post (et al.); and the broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC are nearly indistinguishable. Thus, this recent piece from ABC news left me rather perplexed.
According to the story, "Every day, children in every county in the United States wake up hungry. They go to school hungry. They turn out the lights at night hungry ... To put it another way, one in four children in the (U.S.) is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life."
Yet, barely a year ago, in February of 2010, the Washington Times revealed that "Nearly one-third of U.S. children are overweight or obese -- a rate that has tripled among adolescents and doubled in younger children over the past 30 years. In addition, one-third of children born in 2000 or later eventually will suffer from diabetes, according to the White House."
Thus we end up with Michelle Obama involved in policy and get bombarded with messages of "Let's Move!" We also end up with school systems telling children that they can't bring their own lunch to school.
So, in barely a year we've gone from one-third of all U.S. children being overweight or obese to one-fourth of them continuously being hungry (and three-fourths of all U.S. high school students can't correctly place in least-to-greatest order the three fractions I just used, but I digress). No wonder C.S. Lewis moaned, "Lord! How I loathe great issues ... Could one start a Stagnation Party -- which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?"
mercuryU_D says:
SO YOU JUST PROVED OBAMA IS GROWING THE ECONOMY YOU BIG DUMMY!!!
It's all in the message (FR: massage) of the day...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_war_on_liberal_contradictions.html
Even obesity got revised downward to starving Somalis in Amerikkka....
We must make sure that fat white kids now get free lunches so the Somalis can retain their self-respect...
mercuryU_D says:
SO YOU JUST PROVED OBAMA IS GROWING THE ECONOMY YOU BIG DUMMY!!!
It's all in the message (FR: massage) of the day...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_war_on_liberal_contradictions.html
Even obesity got revised downward to starving Somalis in Amerikkka....
This isn't difficult math.. Where I come from 1/3 + 1/4 is still less than 1.
But I'm no mathematician..![]()
heh heh heh. True, true. You are if nothing else, consistent in your convictions.
Dow falls on Bernanke speech
Updated: 08/26/2011 10:47 ET
DOW 11,173.21 +23.39
Arizona still start with a consonant?
__________________
You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proof facts?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?
Throb thread:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068