Over 59196
politifake

Liblogic Politics


LIBERAL LOGIC - Kinda like Circular logic (minus the logic part)


TAGS: liblogic
Rating: 4.52/5

More politifakes by JGalt

JGalt - October 17, 2012, 9:38 pm
its the blueprint for a lot of hacks here!
funnyguy88 - October 17, 2012, 12:34 pm
I love it !! nice work Galt.


LIBERAL LOGIC 101 - guns kill people, spoons make you fat, hard-working people are greedy, etc




2 STARBUCKS IN STARBUCKS DRINKING STARBUCKS - Liberal arguments are like this photo- cute, trendy, nostalgic, but largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.




LIBERAL LOGIC - even their tin foil hats can't protect them




Liblogic -


TAGS: liblogic fails
Rating: 4.88/5

More politifakes by JGalt

crankyhead - August 4, 2013, 12:38 pm
Not a stretch. You asked for A name, I provided it. Mark Todd. He sh** that Hasan guy. With live rounds. Not that difficult to understand.
crankyhead - August 4, 2013, 12:32 pm
I'm not asking about people with jobs. I'm not asking about students. I'm asking you to show me where it is you get the idea that 'millions and millions of unemployed simply stopped looking for work.'
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 8:39 pm
The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in July had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 8:39 pm
Among the marginally attached, there were 988,000 discouraged workers in July, up by 136,000 from a year earlier.
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 8:38 pm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 8:15 pm
that's an awfully big stretch even for you. The fact is that they had pistols and were neither heavily armed nor surrounding hasan. Next try with the "ooooo shiny!"
crankyhead - August 3, 2013, 6:54 pm
...is ask you which page of that report the quote you are trying to attribute to it, is on, because I couldn't find it anywhere.
crankyhead - August 3, 2013, 6:53 pm
JG, I'm not even going to point out the irony of you using a congressional budget office document to prove an a**ertion, after having spent the last 5 years of your life criticizing congressional budgets, and those in that office. All I'm going to do...
crankyhead - August 3, 2013, 6:49 pm
Prove the statistic is skewed. That's all you have to do to change my mind. I'm not some idiot conservative who refuses to acknowledge facts if they're put in front of me. So put them in front of me. Show me the proof. Pretty simple, really.
crankyhead - August 3, 2013, 6:47 pm
Nice of you to let everyone know that you think MP's aren't soldiers. Showing off that monopoly again, huh? At least you're not in here impersonating a soldier, that would truly be embarrassing.
JGalt - August 3, 2013, 9:20 am
from the CBO: the past three years of high unemployment... the highest since the Great Depression... Hmmmm crankyhead needs to likewise take his differences up with the CBO as well....
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 8:01 am
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/02-16-Unemployment.pdf
StoneTools - August 3, 2013, 7:58 am
OK, Now I get your stupidity. A police officer with a police revolver is considered heavily armed soldiers surrounding a shooter.
crankyhead - August 2, 2013, 9:55 am
Excuse me: "...who decided to stop looking for work."
crankyhead - August 2, 2013, 9:55 am
Also, I'm still waiting for proof of the 'millions of americans who decided to stop eating'.
crankyhead - August 2, 2013, 9:53 am
Actually ST, I provided the name he asked for. If you were paying attention to the conversation, you would know this. But alas, you own the monopoly on ignorance, as you've previously stated, so carry on.
KaBoom - August 1, 2013, 2:17 pm
If we stick with the apple example, if you had 6 full apples and six apple slices...U3 would say there are 12 apples and U6 would say there are 6.The only logical view then is to consider both of the measures within context as neither tells the full story
StoneTools - July 31, 2013, 6:38 pm
you lost what miniscule credibility you had when you claimed to be making a point.
StoneTools - July 31, 2013, 6:36 pm
and foxrecon is still waiting for some proof of hasan being surrounded by heavily armed soldiers
crankyhead - July 31, 2013, 10:22 am
Also, I'm still waiting on some proof of the millions of americans who decided they don't want to work anymore. I suspect I'll be waiting a while. Or, y'know, forever.
crankyhead - July 31, 2013, 10:20 am
...employed, towards your total number of UNEMPLOYED people, doesn't prove the inflated totals you'd like to believe are the 'REAL' numbers.
crankyhead - July 31, 2013, 10:18 am
The point I'm making, and the point I will continue to make, until you can grasp it, is this: Partial employment, is not the same as unemployment. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Counting employed people, even the marginally or partially...
crankyhead - July 31, 2013, 10:16 am
I don't know how to dumb down my argument any further than counting apples in a bag JG. Also, I never said U3 was more accurate than any other number. You said it. Now you're trying to persuade other to believe that I said it. Hypocrite much?
StoneTools - July 30, 2013, 12:02 am
Nice, you are the master of evading completely answering a question.
JGalt - July 29, 2013, 11:40 pm
on this topic as well as your unwilingness to discuss the topic like an adult. You don't like the facts, so you pull out the refutations without substantiation. Still waiting to hear how U3 dropping uneemployed is more accurate than any other number...
JGalt - July 29, 2013, 11:39 pm
still waiting for Crank to address this in his insistence that U3 is the most correct statistic of them all, while many of us realize that the changes to dilute U3 to make unemployment sound better than it really is...
JGalt - July 29, 2013, 11:37 pm
your unsubstantiated refutations do not make you correct, nor have you put forth any logic to support your favorite skewed statistic as the one that is most correct. Your unwillingness to discuss the validity of all the numbers shows your lack of depth
crankyhead - July 29, 2013, 12:05 pm
Seeing as how internet ads use your browsing history to streamline advertizements that are tailor-made for the consumer operating the computer, if I was you, I'd maybe stop complaining about all the 'diarrhea ads', and just go see a doctor already.
Renza - July 29, 2013, 8:25 am
Sounds like it's better than reading all the fundy threads around, it feels like you're stuck in the movie idiocracy.
StoneTools - July 28, 2013, 2:11 pm
I just love reading your comments ... it's so much like going to cracked.com without all the needed ads for diarhea medicine.
crankyhead - July 28, 2013, 1:53 pm
My unwillingness to believe unsubstantiated claims, is not illogical JG.
crankyhead - July 28, 2013, 1:52 pm
Yes, well, those on the right who are allergic to reality keep claiming that there are millions of americans who just decided they didn't want to eat anymore, so they stopped looking for work, yet none of you can provide any documentaion to support this.
crankyhead - July 28, 2013, 1:50 pm
The rest of us will have to take your word for it ST, you are, after all, the expert on moronic, off kilter statements.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:24 pm
in the same month (layoffs, etc) This also skews the outlook.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:23 pm
If the truth mattered, they total employment should also be published to show how many jobs have been created or eliminated as well. The government only likes to talk about how many jobs were created without talking about how many were eliminated
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:22 pm
Maybe to satisfy Crank's a**ertion that the numbers are so overly cooked, the difference between U4 and U6 should be a different color to show how much of the graph is due to people who are only making half of their salary, living with their parents, etc
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:20 pm
as well as Persons employed part time for economic reasons (they want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule)
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:19 pm
U6, on the other hand, is the broadest measure of Unemployment: It includes those people counted by U3, plus marginally attached workers (not looking, but want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past),
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:18 pm
U3 is now comprised in a way that merely repeating it without a slew of caveats borders on fraud.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:17 pm
USED to go into how the US reported unemployment. Hence, there has been a gradual decrease in the Unemployment rate that has occurred regardless of what was happening in the Jobs market.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:17 pm
U3 is the “official unemployment rate” according to the BLS website. Due to this, it is the current measure of Unemployment that gets focused upon by most media, and therefore the public. It has, over the years, slowly excluded many of the factors that US
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:14 pm
right- while u6 is a better feel for the economy, neither number accounts for the contraction of jobs as a percentage of US population
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:12 pm
I would agree that u3 represents 7.6% that are collecting an unemployment check, but Crankyhead refuses to admit that there are unemployed who have become ineligible to collect an unemployment check because u3 is the "real" number and all others are false
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:10 pm
by definition u3 also includes employed people in the mix. that's how you get a percentage.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:05 pm
not sure where that 17 came from, it was supposed to be "7". Under u3, the folks ineligible to collect unemployment who are still unemployed are no longer counted as unemployed. That is where your logic fails in this discussion.
JGalt - July 27, 2013, 2:03 pm
Crank, your the one who needs schooling. The government likes to claim that (under u3) that there are only 17 rotten apples in the barrel because 7 of them have been removed, but they still claim its a percentage of 100 apples instead of 93
StoneTools - July 27, 2013, 12:05 pm
that has to be the most moronic, off kilter thing that you've ever posted cranky.
crankyhead - July 27, 2013, 11:16 am
Time to maybe stop hiding behind the ever quotable: 'Do the math', when clearly, even when the math is being done, you can't grasp it.
crankyhead - July 27, 2013, 11:15 am
...a percentage, you have 14% rotten apple. Still with me? Now lets say that it turns out that 2 or 3 of those rotten apples, are NOT actually rotten. Following your logic, you would now claim that the % of rotten apples is higher than 14%. WTF?
crankyhead - July 27, 2013, 11:13 am
JG, speaking of tilting at windmills, I'm beginning to suspect you'd prefer to be referred to a Mr. Quixote. In any case, I'll simplify it for you further. You have a bag with 100 apples in it. Someone claims that 14 of those apples are rotten. As....
crankyhead - July 27, 2013, 11:11 am
Yes I do.
JGalt - July 24, 2013, 9:45 pm
u6 counts workers that stopped looking for work, which u3 does not count. so for the sake of you just shooting holes for the sake of it- which U do you think best represents the real picture??? present some support for it as well! We're waiting...
JGalt - July 24, 2013, 9:43 pm
not fully counting. I guess we'll agree to disagree. My argument still stands that a higher unemployment number that does count people with part time jobs even still being higher than U3 is still a more accurate number. do the math Crank,
JGalt - July 24, 2013, 9:42 pm
Many of us believe that U3 is more seriously under-representing the facts moreso than the u6,since it only counts a portion of unemployed. However, you tilt at windmills only to state that u6 is wrong without acknowledging that real unemployment is
OTC - July 24, 2013, 4:28 pm
Try the internet, cank
StoneTools - July 24, 2013, 12:15 pm
that applies to both 57587 and 57588
StoneTools - July 24, 2013, 12:14 pm
do you have a link to support that hallucination?
StoneTools - July 24, 2013, 12:13 pm
and U-3 is merely the number of people drawing unemployment checks. Once that runs out, they are no longer counted. Yet you cite that as a credible number. Your position is indefensible
crankyhead - July 24, 2013, 11:55 am
OTC, tell me where it is I can find the data you're quoting.
crankyhead - July 24, 2013, 11:54 am
U-6 is a percentage based number. You remove the employed from the total, and the number shrinks, JG. Please tell me how it is a 'scientist' gets to be 'CFO' of their own 'factory', without being able to understand basic math?
JGalt - July 22, 2013, 12:00 am
That is a 'record' high rate of unemployment.......
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 11:59 pm
54 months and counting...
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 11:59 pm
Oh, BTW Crankyhead- O does indeed holds a record for the longest stretch for > 7.5% unemployment, just to clarify your comment about 'the record'
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 11:56 pm
Cranky listen to yourself. If those numbers were not inlcluded, logic would dictate that U6 would be even higher. Since u6 is already higher than u3, your argument fails.....and loudly.
OTC - July 21, 2013, 6:27 pm
Unemployment hasn't reached the low when obama took office, and it only measures people 'actively' looking for a job, not the millions who stopped looking.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 6:27 pm
If you have 12 apples on a table and 6 fall on the floor, according to U-3 type logic, you have 6 apples.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 6:22 pm
involuntary part timers if you wish) the fact is that 7.6% is only people who are drawing unemployment and is a idiotic number to quote.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 6:21 pm
involuntarily part-time workers (number of people who's hours have been drastically cutback involuntarily), 1 million discouraged workers (stopped looking for a job because they believe there aren't any) If you add those numbers (leave out the
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 6:17 pm
That is most certainly not a wrap up. U-3 does not include people who have exceeded the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation (~1.4 million people). The participation rate of americans in the labor force is down to 63.5%, 8.2 million americans are
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 5:37 pm
So, to wrap it up in a bow, or come full circle in this discussion, since when is 7.6% unemployment a record high?
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 5:36 pm
...does include employed people in it's totals.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 5:36 pm
Please note; I'm not disagreeing that the U-6 data is useless, or that it doesn't provide an insight into the health of the economy, I'm just saying that it's not an accurate representation of 'REAL' unemployment, based solely on the fact that it...
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 5:33 pm
...to be people out there you can sucker into believing you have 12 apples, but that still doesn't make it true.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 5:32 pm
Exactly JG. The U-6 number includes people who are employed. Quoting the U-6 data as being the 'REAL' unemployment numbers is like having 6 apples and 6 oranges, but trying to convince people you actually have 12 apples. Of course, there are going...
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 5:13 pm
In your own quoted source: Includes marinally attached.... and those working part time fro economic reasons. (hint that means sick economy) hence why U6 is a more true measure of the health of the US economy.U3 will look better long before u6 does.
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 5:11 pm
fall off the unemployment elegibility roster.... despite the fact that u6 also includes underemployed-
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 5:10 pm
The fact still remains that the u6 is a more true measure of the health of the economy. U3 drops out those who have given up looking for work after their benefits run out..... by default, no job recovery can lead to a recovery in U3 when the unemployed
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 3:58 pm
Why would I apologize to anyone at Ft. Hood? Most of them would agree with me.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 3:57 pm
Sergeant Mark Todd. Satisfied? Does this mean you're going to go learn what the term cognitive dissonance means? Doubt it.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 3:45 pm
let me qualify that: you haven't name or displayed a link to a single heavily armed soldier surrounding hasan during the shooting.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 3:43 pm
your poster is unfounded bull****, but nothing less than I would expect from a liberal.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 3:42 pm
you still haven't named, or shown link to a picture of, a single heavily armed soldier that was either present or surrounding hasan. You could apologize to the soldiers at Ft Hood or you can continue spreading the liberal lies you spewed. Either way, you
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 2:04 pm
No, he's asking me to qualify a statement I didn't make. I refuse to breathe further life into his lunacy, by pretending as though the things he makes up, are real.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 1:58 pm
Correction: *The opposite of employed....*
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 1:57 pm
The opposite of unemployed is not under-employed, it is unemployed. Let me know if you're still confused.
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 1:00 pm
http://www.politifake.org/this-guy-major-hasan-fort-hood-politics-27822.html
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 1:00 pm
I just looked up your poster and it says: ... SURROUNDED BY heavily armed soldiers. Yet, now you claim you said "were PRESENT"
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 12:56 pm
extractions?
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 12:56 pm
and where, in relation to the shooter, were these "heavily armed men"? Fox has been asking for some time for a single name of one of the heavily armed soldiers, but you still fail to answer him. Is that because it's just another of your famed rectal
StoneTools - July 21, 2013, 12:51 pm
people with part time jobs, for the most part, are not employed, they are under employed. If you still have trouble understanding, just go to your local junior college and ask someone who can drop it down to your level.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 12:04 pm
I never said heavily armed soldiers were KILLED at Ft. Hood, I said heavily armed soldiers were PRESENT at Ft. Hood. Do try to pay attention Waldo.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 12:02 pm
Fox, you have a citation that supports this, I a**ume?
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 11:59 am
Let me know if you get stuck on this obviously confusing detail, I'll do what I can to clarify it further.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 11:58 am
Now let's see if you guys can follow the logic here: People with part time jobs, are employed.
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 11:56 am
From your link JG: "The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons."
crankyhead - July 21, 2013, 11:54 am
The U-6 number includes some employed people in it's total. Ergo, the U-6 number is not the 'REAL' unemployment number, or do you guys not understand logic?
JGalt - July 21, 2013, 10:37 am
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?fromYear=2000&toYear=2013
OTC - July 20, 2013, 7:25 pm
Unemployment has been a lot higher under obama, so canky is correct, 7.6% is not the record high for this administration.
JGalt - July 20, 2013, 7:16 pm
deal... Lets talk on the other hand- where can one find graphs about total employement? No- you can't. The government does not want us to know that full time workers are outnumbered by those on public a**istance!
JGalt - July 20, 2013, 7:14 pm
?cherry pick- that's a stretch C. Everyone in the US that has a working brain knows that the US gov't cherry picks the data they portray as good (even the CPI is cherry picked to show a lower inflation rate.) Everyone knows that the U6 is the real


liberal logic -




CAMPAIGN RHETORIC - would look like this if a liberal was running Romney's campaign


TAGS: liblogic
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by JGalt

JGalt - September 10, 2012, 6:48 am
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/
arnnatz - September 9, 2012, 11:21 pm
No need to reveal sources, it's gotta be true


Liberals: -




PREV PAGE