President Obama - List of Accomplishments

[Tijuana]

And I have backed up my opinions, many times. Can you back up the "fact" that everyone in DC who is not there due to an election, is a bleeding heart liberal?

I already said that. I don't see your point.

[Machismo]

Unemployment rate went down by over 5%, and the Labor Force Participation Rate that you refer to went down by about 3% since Obama took office.

Also keep in mind that while the LFPR has decreased over the past decade and a half, we're still within 5% of the all time high which was in 2000 at about 67.3%.

Ironically, focus on the labor force participation rate was one of the main reasons for stagnating wages over the past 40-ish years. Increased labor participation, without increased productivity, is actually harmful to an economy. All it means, is that the labor market is flooded, and companies can pay less per employee.

- - - Updated - - -

I already said that. I don't see your point.

Are you going to back up that "fact?"

Or is it another of your many examples where you are trying to pass off an opinion as a fact?

[Tijuana]

Ironically, focus on the labor force participation rate was one of the main reasons for stagnating wages over the past 40-ish years. Increased labor participation, without increased productivity, is actually harmful to an economy. All it means, is that the labor market is flooded, and companies can pay less per employee.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you going to back up that "fact?"

Or is it another of your many examples where you are trying to pass off an opinion as a fact?

I don't see why you are attacking me but, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.

[Machismo]

I don't see why you are attacking me but, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.

You still don't want to back it up. You claimed something to be a fact, and I would like you to back it up.

Or, is this another case of you trying to pass off your opinion as a fact? From where I'm sitting, you stated an opinion, and tried to make it seem like a fact, making you a liar.

[Felya]

Many people honestly believe that the adjustment to exclude those who quit looking for work was done under Obama.

I wasn't going to assume he realized that without there being a change in how it was calculated, dismissing the current number because it doesn't include a demographic, is disingenuous.

If we compare U6, and includes caveats like retirement age, the numbers were largely stagnant. While unemployment numbers were swinging from 5% to 11%, the U6 unemployment increase coincided almost exactly to baby boomer retirement numbers reported by AARP. By using U6, you also avoid seeing a segnificant hit to job loss during the recession. Using U6 during the recession, makes it look a lot less impactful than it actually was.

[Zeth Hawkins]

• Banned insurance companies from charging women more than men

But weren't women being charged more because they consume more health care? (we are talking about health insurance, right?)

[Felya]

Unemployment rate went down by over 5%, and the Labor Force Participation Rate that you refer to went down by about 3% since Obama took office.

Also keep in mind that while the LFPR has decreased over the past decade and a half, we're still within 5% of the all time high which was in 2000 at about 67.3%.

Yes, and since 2000, we have had our first influx of baby boomers hitting retirement. Because U6 measures retired as part of unemployment, their numbers, regardless of not looking for work, would have a more segnificant impact than any economic issue we had. Because economic issues keep people looking for work past retirement, something that would also be counted as they collect unemployment. My father in fact collected unemployment, up until a month before retirement in 2011.

- - - Updated - - -

But weren't women being charged more because they consume more health care? (we are talking about health insurance, right?)

Yes, because child birth is a woman's consumption of healthcare costs. Because it's a single cost that will impact every single one of us, regardless of gender, the significance of a gender divide in healthcare cost should be questioned.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Yes, because child birth is a woman's consumption of healthcare costs. Because it's a single cost that will impact every single one of us, regardless of gender, the significance of a gender divide in healthcare cost should be questioned.

You're saying the only reason that women were paying more for health care was because of pregnancy?

[Magical Mudcrab]

I welcome our new open, ethical CIA!

But Spectral, the CIA is being more transparent with the public. Never again will America have an MK Ultra-like program!

[ati87]

But weren't women being charged more because they consume more health care? (we are talking about health insurance, right?)

because they have bloody babies and not because of actual good reasons.

it's the same logic as thinking that getting a boner is worthy of healthcare coverage but not actual birth-control

[Tijuana]

You still don't want to back it up. You claimed something to be a fact, and I would like you to back it up.

Or, is this another case of you trying to pass off your opinion as a fact? From where I'm sitting, you stated an opinion, and tried to make it seem like a fact, making you a liar.

You can think I am a liar, if you like. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.

[Machismo]

You can think I am a liar, if you like. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.

You still won't answer, not a big surprise. You just proved yourself to be a liar, and that is a fact. It's not the first time you've been caught lying, and it surely will not be the last.

[Tijuana]

You still won't answer, not a big surprise. You just proved yourself to be a liar, and that is a fact. It's not the first time you've been caught lying, and it surely will not be the last.

What is it you want me to answer? You are making these wild claims, and I simply stated everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you not understand what opinion means? I'm not refuting your opinions. You can have them if you like.

[stabetha]

Actually, I have... good times.

I don't care if it's a man or a woman, if they can do the job... let them in. The standards should be the same, so there would be no physical issues. I do not support different standards for women, because that creates an unbalanced competitive playing field. Yes, that may mean only a small handful of women are capable of doing it, and that's fine. They should still be given a chance.

thats all well and good but you can bet that in 4- 8 years there will be a study that shows women are under represented in combat rolls and we must do something to be "fair"

[Machismo]

What is it you want me to answer? You are making these wild claims, and I simply stated everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you not understand what opinion means? I'm not refuting your opinions. You can have them if you like.

You stated that everyone in DC not there by an election was a bleeding heart liberal, and stated it was a fact. I want you to back up that claim.

I'm refuting what you claim to be a fact (which it is clearly an opinion, one based on no factual evidence at all). By claiming it to be a fact, when it is not, you are lying. Therefore, it is factually correct that you are a liar. Logic is awesome. Of course, if you can back up that claim, then you will have proven me wrong. If you cannot, you are a proven liar... again.

- - - Updated - - -

thats all well and good but you can bet that in 4- 8 years there will be a study that shows women are under represented in combat rolls and we must do something to be "fair"

Then I would oppose something like that. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing. There is no logical reason to keep someone out of a role, just because of gender. If you want to keep someone out, because she does not meet the standards, that makes absolute sense. Keeping her out, because she has a vagina... does not.

[Tijuana]

You stated that everyone in DC not there by an election was a bleeding heart liberal, and stated it was a fact. I want you to back up that claim.

I'm refuting what you claim to be a fact (which it is clearly an opinion, one based on no factual evidence at all). By claiming it to be a fact, when it is not, you are lying. Therefore, it is factually correct that you are a liar. Logic is awesome. Of course, if you can back up that claim, then you will have proven me wrong. If you cannot, you are a proven liar... again.

- - - Updated - - -



Then I would oppose something like that. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing. There is no logical reason to keep someone out of a role, just because of gender. If you want to keep someone out, because she does not meet the standards, that makes absolute sense. Keeping her out, because she has a vagina... does not.

So, you want me to PROVE an opinion??? What in the world are you on about now?

Also, I have not insulted you, or called you names. Yet, you repeatedly do it to me. Why not just be civil instead?

[ati87]

Many people honestly believe that the adjustment to exclude those who quit looking for work was done under Obama.

Yes the same people that think that Clinton was running a child trafficking ring below a pizzeria.

[Machismo]

So, you want me to PROVE an opinion??? What in the world are you on about now?

Also, I have not insulted you, or called you names. Yet, you repeatedly do it to me. Why not just be civil instead?

You stated it was a fact, now you are saying it was an opinion? Thanks for admitting you were lying.

Calling you out for your lies is not an insult. If you feel insulted when you get called out for lying, maybe you should stop doing it.

"Everyone in Washington, that is not there due to an election, is a bleeding heart Liberal. That's just a fact."

Nope, that's an opinion... and not even a correct one. It is easily proven to be false.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the same people that think that Clinton was running a child trafficking ring below a pizzeria.

Willful ignorance will be the downfall of this country. I used to think it would be corruption or insurrection... nope... willful ignorance...

[Skalm]

Then that woman shouldn't be in the infantry. I'm not saying they should have quotas, or even reduced standards. If they meet the same standards as the men, then there is no logical reason to keep them out.

TBH I was not expecting that. Usually people are all for lowering the standards to allow them in. I completely agree with you, if a woman can meet the same exact physical requirements as a man, then I say have at it. Unfortunately, you and I know that will not be the case.

Because of Agenda's, the military is going to be forced to lower standards, so that women can pass the tests.

One Example from the Marines: Washington Times Article (2015).

Marine Infantry Office Training: 29 women tried. Only 4 made it past the first day of training. 0 Passed.

It is guaranteed they are going to lower the standards, because people would rather push a fking agenda to 'look good' and be 'diverse', than to actually make rational logical decisions.

The people pushing this bullshit do not care what the ramifications are in a combat situation (as it does not directly affect them or their families) nor do they care that it most likely would result in unnecessary deaths (again, it does not directly affect them). They just want to be voted back into their position.

[Machismo]

TBH I was not expecting that. Usually people are all for lowering the standards to allow them in. I completely agree with you, if a woman can meet the same exact physical requirements as a man, then I say have at it. Unfortunately, you and I know that will not be the case.

Because of Agenda's, the military is going to be forced to lower standards, so that women can pass the tests.

One Example from the Marines: Washington Times Article (2015).

Marine Infantry Office Training: 29 women tried. Only 4 made it past the first day of training. 0 Passed.

It is guaranteed they are going to lower the standards, because people would rather push a fking agenda to 'look good' and be 'diverse', than to actually make rational logical decisions.

The people pushing this bullshit do not care what the ramifications are in a combat situation (as it does not directly affect them or their families) nor do they care that it most likely would result in unnecessary deaths (again, it does not directly affect them). They just want to be voted back into their position.

I have only known two women whom I think could have made it in the infantry. One was a triathlete, the other is an MMA fighter. Both are about 6 feet tall, and weigh roughly 180 pounds. I have seen how tough they are, and they were both remarkable Marines. They were both 300 (max) PFTers under the male standards. If either of them wanted to go infantry, I have very little doubt they could have done it.

You are right, the vast majority of women, even female soldiers and Marines, are not able to be in infantry units. They just could not handle the constant rigors that are required. Howeve,r there may be a very small group of women who can qualify, and I have zero problem if they make it in. As for the standards, I already think most of them are too low, so there is no reason to lower them further, just because they are women.