If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Jobless rate is down to 7.8% Romney still to be unemployed next month   (npr.org) divider line 791
    More: Spiffy, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

4079 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



791 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 07:29:30 PM

browntimmy: Since he won't stop trolling the thread, I think it's time to post this again:

Login: legalus
Account Created: 2012-09-28 23:46:02


Winterwhile's newest alt.
 
2012-10-05 07:32:20 PM

legalgus: Should have known.

 

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-05 07:33:19 PM

impaler:

There's a reason I have you red marked as "lying scum." FTFA: "Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012. "

He gave $270, and doesn't work at the BLS anymore.


But at least one more Obama donor does, which is enough to cast the shadow of partisanship onto anything released by the department.

And now I have you red marked as "government sycophant" - infinitely more despicable.
 
2012-10-05 07:35:56 PM

impaler: Xcott: Yeah, I'm sure "Madoff Investment Securities" is out of business because the economy is bad. That's some good evidence there Lou.

^^^ This is how morons argue.

If that was the only company on that list you might have a point. You still have to address the 100s of other companies.


If you start addressing the other companies, you find more exceptions: your list also includes many companies in other countries, including the Luton Town football club.

If you want to make an argument about on the number of companies going under from year to year, you need to remove that stuff first.
 
2012-10-05 07:36:05 PM

b0geyman: impaler:

There's a reason I have you red marked as "lying scum." FTFA: "Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012. "

He gave $270, and doesn't work at the BLS anymore.

But at least one more Obama donor does, which is enough to cast the shadow of partisanship onto anything released by the department.

And now I have you red marked as "government sycophant" - infinitely more despicable.


The partisanship of Fox News must have left you with no more pearls to clasp in astonishment. Hopefully you're posting from your fainting couch....
 
2012-10-05 07:36:36 PM

b0geyman: But at least one more Obama donor does, which is enough to cast the shadow of partisanship onto anything released by the department.


Yeah, a department with 2500 workers has one ex-worker who donated a whole $270. This casts doubt on everything current employees do.
 
2012-10-05 07:38:06 PM

Xcott: If you start addressing the other companies, you find more exceptions: your list also includes many companies in other countries, including the Luton Town football club.

If you want to make an argument about on the number of companies going under from year to year, you need to remove that stuff first.


I don't make the list, and that's only relevant if the we don't have a global economy.
 
2012-10-05 07:38:29 PM

impaler: b0geyman: But at least one more Obama donor does, which is enough to cast the shadow of partisanship onto anything released by the department.

Yeah, a department with 2500 workers has one ex-worker who donated a whole $270. This casts doubt on everything current employees do.


I can assure you that the Koch brothers will run a much tighter administration.
 
2012-10-05 07:46:24 PM

intelligent comment below: This conservative troll meltdown is AWESOME

Keep it up guys, just when you came off the high of used car salesman Romney lying his way to "victory" in the debates.

What a way to kick off a weekend


Dude, tell me about it! I'm loving it. Such epic meltdown. You know that feeling when you're so giddy it feels like your voice box is trying to jump out of your throat?
 
2012-10-05 07:50:47 PM

Toxic Park: intelligent comment below: This conservative troll meltdown is AWESOME

Keep it up guys, just when you came off the high of used car salesman Romney lying his way to "victory" in the debates.

What a way to kick off a weekend

Dude, tell me about it! I'm loving it. Such epic meltdown. You know that feeling when you're so giddy it feels like your voice box is trying to jump out of your throat?


You know it's bad when you see the same old trolls with brand new accounts. But hey, maybe you really are on the right side of history if you have to change your identity every few years.

Pride is a sin, and they certainly aren't creating new accounts out of shame... right?
 
2012-10-05 07:59:53 PM

MSFT: Toxic Park: intelligent comment below: This conservative troll meltdown is AWESOME

Keep it up guys, just when you came off the high of used car salesman Romney lying his way to "victory" in the debates.

What a way to kick off a weekend

Dude, tell me about it! I'm loving it. Such epic meltdown. You know that feeling when you're so giddy it feels like your voice box is trying to jump out of your throat?

You know it's bad when you see the same old trolls with brand new accounts. But hey, maybe you really are on the right side of history if you have to change your identity every few years.

Pride is a sin, and they certainly aren't creating new accounts out of shame... right?


haha, nope, not at all!

Seriously though, long time daily lurker here, and I have to say this is the biggest troll meltdown I have ever seen.

Just curious though, it seems Romney himself has accepted this report and these numbers. What's their story for that?
 
2012-10-05 08:02:57 PM

Toxic Park: MSFT: Toxic Park: intelligent comment below: This conservative troll meltdown is AWESOME

Keep it up guys, just when you came off the high of used car salesman Romney lying his way to "victory" in the debates.

What a way to kick off a weekend

Dude, tell me about it! I'm loving it. Such epic meltdown. You know that feeling when you're so giddy it feels like your voice box is trying to jump out of your throat?

You know it's bad when you see the same old trolls with brand new accounts. But hey, maybe you really are on the right side of history if you have to change your identity every few years.

Pride is a sin, and they certainly aren't creating new accounts out of shame... right?

haha, nope, not at all!

Seriously though, long time daily lurker here, and I have to say this is the biggest troll meltdown I have ever seen.

Just curious though, it seems Romney himself has accepted this report and these numbers. What's their story for that?


Hard to say, I don't think O'Reilly is on for a few more hours......
 
2012-10-05 08:09:01 PM

qorkfiend: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Bill Frist: Yes? Or were you under some weird delusion that America has never had high unemployment and would never have it again?

I understand the history. And I'm sure that people coming out of the great depression were glad when we crossed back past 8%. However this jubilation is unwarranted and it sure as heck doesnt merit renewing President Obama's contract.

I love this line of thinking.

"The economy isn't 100% recovered from the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, and the blatant, unrelenting obstruction of Congressional Republicans didn't help. Let's reward the GOP for their intransigence and go back to the policies that caused the collapse in the first place."

What the fark is wrong with you? What possible reasons could you have for this being a good idea?

 

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-05 08:16:23 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: However this jubilation is unwarranted and it sure as heck doesnt merit renewing President Obama's contract.


Well it damn sure doesn't merit replacing him with someone whose purpose in life has been to push that number higher for the many just to make the few richer.

Better to leave the car keys in the hands of the guy trying to get us back on the freeway rather than in the Mitts of the guys who helped put us in the ditch in the first place.

/see what I did there
 
2012-10-05 09:46:37 PM

impaler: Xcott: If you start addressing the other companies, you find more exceptions: your list also includes many companies in other countries, including the Luton Town football club.

If you want to make an argument about on the number of companies going under from year to year, you need to remove that stuff first.

I don't make the list, and that's only relevant if the we don't have a global economy.


That doesn't even make sense. So it's okay to post spurious data because you didn't write it? You can't edit it to take out the spurious data?

Nevermind the fundamental derpiness of posting a Wikipedia list of failed companies as an economic indicator. The number of entries in each year doesn't mean anything, because it's an incomplete list of whatever some Wikipedia user thought was worth adding. That's like counting the number of FAIL videos on Youtube every year as proof that skateboards are getting safer.

And the bit about a global economy is silly. Different countries are experiencing different economic crises for different reasons. If the number of Greek bankruptcies or failed English football clubs goes up or down, it says nothing about whether conditions are improving in the United States.
 
2012-10-05 10:13:55 PM

Xcott: That doesn't even make sense. So it's okay to post spurious data because you didn't write it? You can't edit it to take out the spurious data?

Nevermind the fundamental derpiness of posting a Wikipedia list of failed companies as an economic indicator. The number of entries in each year doesn't mean anything, because it's an incomplete list of whatever some Wikipedia user thought was worth adding. That's like counting the number of FAIL videos on Youtube every year as proof that skateboards are getting safer.

And the bit about a global economy is silly. Different countries are experiencing different economic crises for different reasons. If the number of Greek bankruptcies or failed English football clubs goes up or down, it says nothing about whether conditions are improving in the United States.


If you can't remember the massive rash of companies going under 4 years ago, there's no helping you.

I could go through the list and cull non-US companies, and it's not going to look much different. I will also end up culling companies from the 2011 2012 years. That's the point, and it's valid.
 
2012-10-05 10:23:30 PM

legalgus: Dinki: intelligent comment below: This conservative troll meltdown is AWESOME

Yep, they got so excited after the debate and before they knew it, everything fell apart again. It's delicious.

Good employment numbers > a debate win any day of the week.

Only thing falling apart is country under Obama.


Which is why it's been recovering since mid- to late-2009, despite all of the Republican attempts to filibuster and fight everything Obama does so their #1 job that Obama is a one-term president is realized.

/could have gotten out of it sooner and faster, but your side wanted to be childish
 
2012-10-05 10:41:45 PM

Xcott: impaler: Xcott: If you start addressing the other companies, you find more exceptions: your list also includes many companies in other countries, including the Luton Town football club.

If you want to make an argument about on the number of companies going under from year to year, you need to remove that stuff first.

I don't make the list, and that's only relevant if the we don't have a global economy.

That doesn't even make sense. So it's okay to post spurious data because you didn't write it? You can't edit it to take out the spurious data?

Nevermind the fundamental derpiness of posting a Wikipedia list of failed companies as an economic indicator. The number of entries in each year doesn't mean anything, because it's an incomplete list of whatever some Wikipedia user thought was worth adding. That's like counting the number of FAIL videos on Youtube every year as proof that skateboards are getting safer.

And the bit about a global economy is silly. Different countries are experiencing different economic crises for different reasons. If the number of Greek bankruptcies or failed English football clubs goes up or down, it says nothing about whether conditions are improving in the United States.


Are you seriously suggesting conditions are NOT improving in the US?
 
2012-10-05 10:43:35 PM

theknuckler_33: Xcott: impaler: Xcott: If you start addressing the other companies, you find more exceptions: your list also includes many companies in other countries, including the Luton Town football club.

If you want to make an argument about on the number of companies going under from year to year, you need to remove that stuff first.

I don't make the list, and that's only relevant if the we don't have a global economy.

That doesn't even make sense. So it's okay to post spurious data because you didn't write it? You can't edit it to take out the spurious data?

Nevermind the fundamental derpiness of posting a Wikipedia list of failed companies as an economic indicator. The number of entries in each year doesn't mean anything, because it's an incomplete list of whatever some Wikipedia user thought was worth adding. That's like counting the number of FAIL videos on Youtube every year as proof that skateboards are getting safer.

And the bit about a global economy is silly. Different countries are experiencing different economic crises for different reasons. If the number of Greek bankruptcies or failed English football clubs goes up or down, it says nothing about whether conditions are improving in the United States.

Are you seriously suggesting conditions are NOT improving in the US?


If they admitted they were, they'd lose most of their reasons to hate and rage.
 
2012-10-06 01:41:41 AM

impaler: If you can't remember the massive rash of companies going under 4 years ago, there's no helping you.


theknuckler_33: Are you seriously suggesting conditions are NOT improving in the US?


Of course things are better now. That doesn't justify posting random Internet flotsam as evidence.

This is not a representative list of business failures: it's a small subset of failures of interest to some Internet wonk. That's why it includes eight English football clubs, but no businesses in Spain or Greece. So I guess that means the Greek economy is doing great, right? That's the logic being employed in this thread.

In fact, Wikipedia even warns you that it's an incomplete list, and elaborates that "t's important that our readers understand that these lists should not be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed." Wikipedia's editorial policy forbids them from saying "you're a tard if you use a crowdsourced list as scientific data."
 
2012-10-06 01:48:14 AM
I'm a total liberal on moral and religious grounds. Republican policies favor white/male/christian/straight citizens. That's wrong. Economically, the rich are getting richer- and that's globally, not just here. That needs to stop. I see little difference between today's wealthy and yesterdays royals. Lives of power and privilege, passed from one generation to the next. Job creators my ass. They hire people to work for them because they have to, to perpetuate their wealth, not out of any altruistic motives. They would fire every one of you tomorrow if they could.
However- Governments and individuals must live within their means. Stop borrowing and spending to satiate your every whim. When you owe, you're owned.
I've been around the world, and I know, we've got it pretty easy here.
On topic- A .3 decrease in unemployment is nothing to crow about. But things are getting better, by a number of metrics. Whether that's political or cyclical I have no idea. Probably a little of both.
But look, the next the next time your stocks or real estate values start posting double digit gains year on year remember- it's not because you're a genius, or that you deserve it, or because America is so awesome. It's because you're about to get farked.
 
2012-10-06 03:04:46 AM

randomjsa: Incidentally even if this is true, Obama has the worst record for jobs since WW2.


No, that would be Bush.
 
2012-10-06 04:26:15 AM
subby...

They said that Al Gore was gonna win too.
 
2012-10-06 04:54:40 AM

Atillathepun: randomjsa: Incidentally even if this is true, Obama has the worst record for jobs since WW2.

No, that would be Bush.


If anyone thinks it's Bush or Obama or any U.S. President........they are goddamn Supreme Idiots.
 
2012-10-06 08:06:29 AM

torusXL: If anyone thinks it's Bush or Obama or any U.S. President........they are goddamn Supreme Idiots.


It has always amazed me how much power people want to attribute to the guy we rotate out every 4-8 years.
 
2012-10-06 09:28:31 AM

Avery614: torusXL: If anyone thinks it's Bush or Obama or any U.S. President........they are goddamn Supreme Idiots.

It has always amazed me how much power people want to attribute to the guy we rotate out every 4-8 years.


Yeah, I mean, it's not like the President can order the death of the most wanted man in the world or anything. He has so little power.
 
2012-10-06 10:03:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, I mean, it's not like the President can order the death of the most wanted man in the world or anything. He has so little power.


Yep all the President did was snap his fingers and say do it and it got done. Too bad W. didn't think of that, but hey, he wasn't known for his smarts. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years. It's not like there were intelligence teams and military personnel that have been in these positions since the previous administration and likely the administration before that. It's not like the president was handed a bunch of information and said yep that sounds good. He did it all, I heard he flew the chopper himself. If I recall correctly he did say kill him with any means necessary, the president didn't want Bin Laden, the head of all of Al Qaeda alive what good would that do? Nope he knew better and ordered his death. I mean really, what would the president want with him alive? Put him on trial.
 
2012-10-06 10:29:29 AM

Avery614: s. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years


We hadn't. Remember? W said he didn't much care about him and shut down the CIA bin Laden office. Obama restarted it in 2009 (yeah, he has the power to do that too!) and lo and behold, we find him and kill him in 2010.
 
2012-10-06 11:00:20 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Avery614: s. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years

We hadn't. Remember? W said he didn't much care about him and shut down the CIA bin Laden office. Obama restarted it in 2009 (yeah, he has the power to do that too!) and lo and behold, we find him and kill him in 2010.


Serious question. Who has more power in that situation; the guy who re-opened an office within the CIA or the agents who are half way around the world controlling the flow of information back to the president?

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to imply the president is impotent by any stretch and my original statement was referring to how much control he has regarding the addition of new jobs to the market. I just think people often forget the the entire office is part of a checks and balances system and the president rarely does anything "alone". He is still somewhat accountable to two other branches of government that in my opinion wield as much power (and whose members have often been entrenched in their position much longer) as the president in most matters. In matters of war I do understand being the "Commander-in-Chief" does give him certain powers over the military and intelligence gathering communities, however it is my understanding that the decision is ultimately up to congress as to whether we use military force or not.
 
2012-10-06 11:34:40 AM

Avery614: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, I mean, it's not like the President can order the death of the most wanted man in the world or anything. He has so little power.

Yep all the President did was snap his fingers and say do it and it got done. Too bad W. didn't think of that, but hey, he wasn't known for his smarts. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years. It's not like there were intelligence teams and military personnel that have been in these positions since the previous administration and likely the administration before that.


So that doesn't count as "power," if it's not you killing a dude by snapping your fingers, but instead commanding a massive military and intelligence apparatus composed of other people?

I guess if you don't count anything you have to delegate, then people like Caesar and Hitler were just nobodies, and the most powerful man on Earth is whoever can crush a beer can the hardest.

But killing Bin Laden is small potatoes. How about Abe Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in the state of Maryland, and then issuing the emancipation proclamation? The emancipation proclamation really was Lincoln snapping his fingers: he didn't need any cooperation from congress or the courts, because it was entirely within his authority as the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief.
 
2012-10-06 11:46:27 AM

hdhale: Dinki: hdhale: Then have them show the nation the final numbers. Better yet, let's have an investigation into the matter and see who declares executive privilege when documents are requested.

Go screw yourself you pathetic little troll. You were just fine when the numbers were above 8%, but now that they are coming down you and the rest of the gop shills are going all in with a slimy little conspiracy story. As usual, you are rooting for bad news for America. DIAF.

Meet the Obama Donors at the BLS

Should Obama lose this one, remember the Jet Blue will be offering discounts to people who want to leave the US for some place tropical. Make sure you book early.


Lol - includes in its extensive list of two a person who hadn't worked at the BLS for almost 4 months before the report came out.
 
2012-10-06 12:26:38 PM

Xcott: So that doesn't count as "power," if it's not you killing a dude by snapping your fingers, but instead commanding a massive military and intelligence apparatus composed of other people?

I guess if you don't count anything you have to delegate, then people like Caesar and Hitler were just nobodies, and the most powerful man on Earth is whoever can crush a beer can the hardest.


Avery614: In matters of war I do understand being the "Commander-in-Chief" does give him certain powers over the military and intelligence gathering communities, however it is my understanding that the decision is ultimately up to congress as to whether we use military force or not.


When it comes to Caesar, I find the scenario far different. This man was a general first, he led his men on the battlefield, he wasn't half a world away signing documents that gave him an idea of what was going on through the eyes of his men, he killed, just like everyone else in his army. Germany under Hitler was so fundamentally different in its operation compared to the U.S. they are just not worth comparing. Admittedly I don't know much about and don't feel like researching how laws surrounding what Lincoln did have changed but I'd bet even money that shiat has changed over the last 150+ years, admittedly I could be wrong. That being said, he did it just after the start of the Civil War, understandable. Lastly Bin Laden wasn't just "America's Most Wanted", he was the leader of a group of people we were/are at war with, he was dead the minute those planes hit the towers, there was no doubt about if just when. It is my understanding he was an enemy combatant at the time and Obama didn't sign a death warrant, he signed documents that allowed our men to enter Pakistan, which as Commander-in-Chief I expect him to have the power to do. Congress was the body that passed "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists". 

/I do like how you used freeing the slaves and the suspension of habeas corpus during a civil war as a demonstration that a president can wield too much power
 
2012-10-06 12:44:28 PM

Avery614: cameroncrazy1984: Avery614: s. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years

We hadn't. Remember? W said he didn't much care about him and shut down the CIA bin Laden office. Obama restarted it in 2009 (yeah, he has the power to do that too!) and lo and behold, we find him and kill him in 2010.

Serious question. Who has more power in that situation; the guy who re-opened an office within the CIA or the agents who are half way around the world controlling the flow of information back to the president?

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to imply the president is impotent by any stretch and my original statement was referring to how much control he has regarding the addition of new jobs to the market. I just think people often forget the the entire office is part of a checks and balances system and the president rarely does anything "alone". He is still somewhat accountable to two other branches of government that in my opinion wield as much power (and whose members have often been entrenched in their position much longer) as the president in most matters. In matters of war I do understand being the "Commander-in-Chief" does give him certain powers over the military and intelligence gathering communities, however it is my understanding that the decision is ultimately up to congress as to whether we use military force or not.


Easy question. The only one who has the decision to kill the man or not has more power than the one who evaluates whether or not a guy may be the source or not. That's why he's the President, and the other guy is a CIA analyst. That decision is way above the analyst's paygrade.

And no, whether we use military force or not is ultimately up to the President. Congress only has to approve it if it lasts longer than a certain amount of time. So, if the President decides to use his power to do something, he can do it by himself, alone.

Got anymore questions for me?
 
2012-10-06 12:45:50 PM
Oh, and I do find it funny that you dropped the whole "Bush is more responsible than Obama" after I brought up the fact that Obama restarted the CIA bin Laden office.
 
2012-10-06 02:31:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: And no, whether we use military force or not is ultimately up to the President. Congress only has to approve it if it lasts longer than a certain amount of time.(You're talking about the "War Powers Resolution" here, might want to look at that, been violated only 3 times since its inception, Reagan in El Salvador, Clinton in Kosovo and Obama in Lybia. Met with congressional disapproval but no prosecutions.) So, if the President decides to use his power to do something, he can do it by himself, alone.

Got anymore questions for me?


Nope, that told me all I needed to know. It was the president's decision to kill Bin Laden, congress is not the body that authorizes military action, and control of the flow of information holds no power, got it.

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, and I do find it funny that you dropped the whole "Bush is more responsible than Obama" after I brought up the fact that Obama restarted the CIA bin Laden office.


How did you get that from this?

Avery614: Yep all the President did was snap his fingers and say do it and it got done. Too bad W. didn't think of that, but hey, he wasn't known for his smarts. I mean it's not like we had been looking for the dude for more than eight years. It's not like there were intelligence teams and military personnel that have been in these positions since the previous administration and likely the administration before that.



Was I trying to blame Clinton, since I referenced his administration too? Blame for what exactly?
I was trying to imply that it took more that a "get-er-done" from the president to get Bin Laden, otherwise even dum-dum would have done it. He's not that stupid, I'll give him that much.. Never once did I speak to responsibility. If you want to give Obama all the credit for Bin Laden, that's fine by me.
 
2012-10-06 02:45:50 PM

Avery614: /I do like how you used freeing the slaves and the suspension of habeas corpus during a civil war as a demonstration that a president can wield too much power


Freeing the slaves was wielding too much power??

The Emancipation Proclamation was well within the President's powers. It was obviously unpopular in some circles at the time, but it wasn't some sort of unconstitutional power grab.

In any case, Lincoln took a very direct role in the strategic planning of the civil war, and spent most of his days in the telegraph office urging his generals to act. Despite this, he ran operations from Washington, just as Obama did; you don't have to ride at the front of an army to play a major role in what happens and how.

Also, Obama did a lot more than say "yeah go ahead." Authorizing the raid was a huge political risk, and a huge diplomatic risk---even if successful, it would at the very least embarrass Pakistan. If it failed, it could have meant his office. I believe Bush had a similar opportunity to take out OBL and passed.
 
2012-10-06 03:03:21 PM

Xcott: Freeing the slaves was wielding too much power??

The Emancipation Proclamation was well within the President's powers. It was obviously unpopular in some circles at the time, but it wasn't some sort of unconstitutional power grab.

In any case, Lincoln took a very direct role in the strategic planning of the civil war, and spent most of his days in the telegraph office urging his generals to act. Despite this, he ran operations from Washington, just as Obama did; you don't have to ride at the front of an army to play a major role in what happens and how.

Also, Obama did a lot more than say "yeah go ahead." Authorizing the raid was a huge political risk, and a huge diplomatic risk---even if successful, it would at the very least embarrass Pakistan. If it failed, it could have meant his office. I believe Bush had a similar opportunity to take out OBL and passed.


Sorry man, I think we are on the same page, paragraph and sentence, I just misunderstood the tone of your post. I thought you were trying to say he was over-reaching.

Anyhow, I do understand that in matters of war the president has more power than any other entity in the country and I wasn't trying to downplay the risk Obama took. Originally the "power" I was referring to was in job creation but you and cameron have had me looking up war powers shiat for the last hour or more. Not ashamed to say I learned a few things. I also didn't mean to imply leadership from the front was better or worse than leadership from the rear just that the decision making process would be wildly different. 

/thanks to both of you for helping me kill another work day
 
2012-10-06 05:48:31 PM

hugram: Callous: hugram: mrshowrules: hugram: [...]
Here are other economic indicators for you to be upset about... enjoy.


Yow. Nicely done. You are now favorited in a lovely shade of recovery green.
 
2012-10-07 11:50:01 AM

DaCaptain19: I'm part of the problem.


FTFY
 
2012-10-07 08:10:32 PM

mrshowrules: impaler: hdhale: Meet the Obama Donors at the BLS

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012

An economist that used to work at the BLS donated $270 to Obama!!!

OMG!

You fukers are pathetic.

I found the Google Street View for the parking lot outside the BLS headquarters and saw at least 3 Volkswagens parked there. One had a faded "I Carpool" bumper sticker. It's worse that we thought.


The BLS uses an internal parking garage for all of its employees.
 
2012-10-08 11:05:04 AM

Girion47: mrshowrules: impaler: hdhale: Meet the Obama Donors at the BLS

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012

An economist that used to work at the BLS donated $270 to Obama!!!

OMG!

You fukers are pathetic.

I found the Google Street View for the parking lot outside the BLS headquarters and saw at least 3 Volkswagens parked there. One had a faded "I Carpool" bumper sticker. It's worse that we thought.

The BLS uses an internal parking garage for all of its employees.


Google Street View has gotten VERY detailed.
 
Displayed 41 of 791 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report