This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kinder Graham
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 243
5131
« on: October 04, 2014, 02:59:25 PM »
And how many of those jobs "created" are people that got a second and third job? Oh, and that unemployment number is only those that are unemployed while trying to find jobs. The actual unemployment rate is far higher
http://rt.com/usa/us-unemployment-rate-percent-808/
This is 2012 but:
The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no job and are looking for work. This number is called a “U-3” rate. It does not count those who have stopped looking for work or who are working part-time.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics takes these other factors into consideration for data it calls the “U-6” – and these numbers are shockingly higher.
U-6 data includes “discouraged workers,” which the Bureau defines as people not in the labor force, but want and are available for work and had looked for a job in the prior year.
Those who have not looked for work in the prior month are not included in the U-3 unemployment rate.
Our economy is a bloated, inflated joke being masked with lies to make it seem like everything is dandy. It's not and until we actually get politicians not bought and bribed (probably never) then the economy is going to be a tank full of shit
Are you seriously using RussiaToday? Lol.
Problem? It uses information from the Bureau of Labor
5132
« on: October 04, 2014, 02:34:00 PM »
I think she's in my Destiny game right now! The GT is Keeker166. Is that hers?
5133
« on: October 04, 2014, 01:57:44 PM »
And how many of those jobs "created" are people that got a second and third job? Oh, and that unemployment number is only those that are unemployed while trying to find jobs. The actual unemployment rate is far higher
http://rt.com/usa/us-unemployment-rate-percent-808/
This is 2012 but:
The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no job and are looking for work. This number is called a “U-3” rate. It does not count those who have stopped looking for work or who are working part-time.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics takes these other factors into consideration for data it calls the “U-6” – and these numbers are shockingly higher.
U-6 data includes “discouraged workers,” which the Bureau defines as people not in the labor force, but want and are available for work and had looked for a job in the prior year.
Those who have not looked for work in the prior month are not included in the U-3 unemployment rate. >rt
>2012
You'd think every American would be happy unemployment is down at a percentage that was said would not be reached for years. Unemployment is down, tons of jobs have been created. You can put any twist on that you like, but facts are facts. http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp
I agree, facts are facts. Facts here is that the number of jobs "created" includes people who have to get a second and third job because of the inflated and unproductive economy. Other fact is that the unemployment number in your source is the one that's being twisted http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htmStraight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Measure: U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Sept. 2014: 11.8% unemployment I seriously love that because something factually contradicts what you said, you try to play it off as incredibly or whatever. Go on, try to twist the facts once again
5134
« on: October 04, 2014, 01:25:39 PM »
Obama should have been impeached by releasing those 5 terrorists without going to Congress
Lol
Laughing at the law being broken is not a funny manner
5135
« on: October 04, 2014, 01:22:49 PM »
And how many of those jobs "created" are people that got a second and third job? Oh, and that unemployment number is only those that are unemployed while trying to find jobs. The actual unemployment rate is far higher http://rt.com/usa/us-unemployment-rate-percent-808/This is 2012 but: The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no job and are looking for work. This number is called a “U-3” rate. It does not count those who have stopped looking for work or who are working part-time.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics takes these other factors into consideration for data it calls the “U-6” – and these numbers are shockingly higher.
U-6 data includes “discouraged workers,” which the Bureau defines as people not in the labor force, but want and are available for work and had looked for a job in the prior year.
Those who have not looked for work in the prior month are not included in the U-3 unemployment rate. Our economy is a bloated, inflated joke being masked with lies to make it seem like everything is dandy. It's not and until we actually get politicians not bought and bribed (probably never) then the economy is going to be a tank full of shit
5136
« on: October 04, 2014, 11:34:33 AM »
Jesus loves you
Evidence to the contrary?
None No other person would let themselves be tortured and killed to protect everybody else
5137
« on: October 04, 2014, 12:40:42 AM »
Obama should have been impeached by releasing those 5 terrorists without going to Congress
5138
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:27:59 PM »
Well shit, I guess I just saved myself some money/effort then <.<
If the multiplayer doesn't work then that's basically the only reason to get it >.>
I'll probably still get XBL for BF3 shenanigans though.
Multiplayer is fantastic Arica Harbor/Rush mode 24/7 bby
5139
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:21:29 PM »
The more we keeping pestering them, the more they will do this shit
Here's an idea: Tell the Middle-East to handle it's own damn issues
Or we could, I don't know, not leave the responsibility of stopping genocide to the most backwards, Islamic place on the planet.
And the other option would be what, continue to have the West provoke genocide?
Not that it would stop them even if we left them to it.
Notice that all of radicals aggression is aimed at the West. We are the reason they do this shit. All we do is provoke them governments know well know enough that it's the case and know well enough they profit from it
5140
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:31:29 PM »
The more we keeping pestering them, the more they will do this shit
Here's an idea: Tell the Middle-East to handle it's own damn issues
Or we could, I don't know, not leave the responsibility of stopping genocide to the most backwards, Islamic place on the planet.
And the other option would be what, continue to have the West provoke genocide?
5141
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:30:02 PM »
I am hoping to be able to do that raid soon. I am hoping it is worth it. Keeker has an amazing cloak for her Hunter from doing it.
I've gotten 2 legendary armor pieces and a legendary class item, so it's worth it IMO. There's chest everywhere and have gotten ascendant shards from them. Just random stuff And the Raid is nothing like the rest of the game. It's really fun and challenging
5142
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:49:57 PM »
The more we keeping pestering them, the more they will do this shit
Here's an idea: Tell the Middle-East to handle it's own damn issues
5143
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:42:24 PM »
Should I have CFA or Moes?!
Chik-fil-A
I'm curious as to why you would ever support a company like that.
Because what a person does with their salary should not be the business of others; it's a private manner. Plus there are people relying on a paycheck in order to make a living so less people buying the product means less revenue and people loosing jobs It's just as dumb from doing business with companies that support Israel because nearly every single one does. I hate Israel but I'm not about to risk a persons source of income
5144
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:22:41 PM »
Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?
I do have proof, look at the website I posted. This site is well known for accuracy of knowledge of firearms because it is being operated by firearms owners. Want bias? Go to CNN, MSNBC, and HuffPost
So nothing other than an extremely pro gun website? If you don't think that's biased, you're wrong.
A couple of sources and stories proving this is real and I'll believe it, for now it's about as credible as a supermarket tabloid.
How about a few primary sources, straight from people like these?
And you want other sources, here's a couple. Don't go moving the goal posts either. You wanted some, you got some
http://concealednation.org/2014/10/moms-demand-action-followers-are-violent-and-crazy-just-read-their-reaction-comments/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389441/moms-demand-swatting-charles-c-w-cooke
http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-women-continue-to-corroborate-progressive-contradiction
These sites are extremely right wing and incredibly biased, as well as unprofessional. And it seems to me a few Twitter comments of people talking shit doesn't exactly corroborate with your supposed claim of widespread usage of what would appear almost as a terror tactic.
It's being exaggerated. If people really do this and there's actual proof apart from the one cat who got the man in Walmart killed, I'll believe it. For now it's distortion of the truth, misinformation, and fear mongering.
Of course they're going to be more right-wing. You seriously expect left-wing sources to display information against their supporters? Of course not. You can easily go onto any anti-gun groups social media account and see the people that display these feelings
5145
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:18:47 PM »
So who cares if it's Morgan? Even an idiot knows how terrible Obama is
5146
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:00:46 PM »
Should I have CFA or Moes?!
Chik-fil-A
How do I know you didn't poison the food?
5147
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:57:06 AM »
5-9
5148
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:54:09 AM »
Should I have CFA or Moes?!
5149
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:30:45 AM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2776592/A-slapdash-Secret-Service-isn-t-s-wrong-White-House-real-scandal-President-complacent-protecting-Americans.htmlPresident Obama this week committed professional suicide.
Let me explain.
There is a theory in politics that once a leader has fired 50 or more people from his or her administration, he or she is finished.
The reason being that by creating so many enemies ‘outside the tent’, the tent itself becomes too deluged with poisonous bile to avoid sinking into a quagmire of back-stabbing ignominy.
Obama went a lot further than firing 50 people.
He managed to single-handedly alienate 200,000 employees in the American intelligence agencies by going on 60 Minutes and ruthlessly chucking them all under a bus over the rise of terror group ISIS.
James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) has acknowledged that they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,’ he said, when asked how ISIS’ influence could have spread so fast.
As Governor Chris Christie pointed out, by saying ‘they’ rather than ‘we’, Obama tried to distance himself from any personal responsibility or accountability for what has been a catastrophic failure to act over the greatest terror threat facing the world since Osama Bin Laden.
A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President.
And for what purpose?
All that will happen now is that those maligned intelligence agencies will exact cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.
It’s what they do.
The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away.
There were clear, unambiguous public warnings made nearly a year ago in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee that ISIS was on the march in Syria and Iraq.
But perhaps Obama missed them.
Hardly surprising when we discover yesterday that he has only attended 42.1 percent of his Presidential Daily intelligence briefings.
No wonder the Secret Service gets complacent when The Boss exudes complacency from every pore.
Obama prides himself on a ‘leading from behind’ American strategy to confronting global terrorism and the current chaos raging throughout the Middle East.
But refusing to intervene in conflicts like Syria has so far proved to be spectacularly self-defeating.
Far from making America stronger, Obama has made the world’s greatest military power look weak.
So weak that these Jihadist thugs think they can behead American citizens with impunity in glossy snuff movies.
Imagine how emboldened they must have felt when Obama made his ‘heartfelt’ speech about journalist James Foley’s execution, and was then seen laughing and joking on the golf course SEVEN MINUTES later.
Obama has so far played golf 192 times since becoming President.
Even Rory McIlroy would struggle to match such enthusiasm for the game.
But Rory isn’t the Leader of the Free World, and with such a title comes huge responsibility.
The kind of responsibility that Obama seems so keen to shirk.
It’s time he got off the damn golf course, got up to speed with his intelligence briefings and focused on wiping out ISIS.
Before they wipe out more of the people he serves.
5150
« on: October 03, 2014, 10:09:16 AM »
Seinfeld, Drake and Josh, The Goldbergs, Keenan and Kel, The Middle, and That 70s Show would like a word
5152
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:47:30 AM »
gib ebola-chan a hug 
5153
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:10:06 AM »
Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?
I do have proof, look at the website I posted. This site is well known for accuracy of knowledge of firearms because it is being operated by firearms owners. Want bias? Go to CNN, MSNBC, and HuffPost
So nothing other than an extremely pro gun website? If you don't think that's biased, you're wrong.
A couple of sources and stories proving this is real and I'll believe it, for now it's about as credible as a supermarket tabloid.
How about a few primary sources, straight from people like these? And you want other sources, here's a couple. Don't go moving the goal posts either. You wanted some, you got some http://concealednation.org/2014/10/moms-demand-action-followers-are-violent-and-crazy-just-read-their-reaction-comments/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389441/moms-demand-swatting-charles-c-w-cookehttp://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-women-continue-to-corroborate-progressive-contradiction
5154
« on: October 03, 2014, 07:55:47 AM »
Idiots FROM, meaning people from a group; not the group itself. Your post has no meaning now and can be discarded
Wouldn't "idiots from a group" imply that these people are actually members or representatives of the group?
It doesn't imply the group itself
5155
« on: October 03, 2014, 07:51:13 AM »
Apart from a website called "bearingarms.com" which is clearly biased, do you have any other sources proving this? Any proof at all of a large amount of people making false calls to the police specifically to scare or endanger gun owners?
I do have proof, look at the website I posted. This site is well known for accuracy of knowledge of firearms because it is being operated by firearms owners. Want bias? Go to CNN, MSNBC, and HuffPost
5156
« on: October 03, 2014, 07:49:17 AM »
So, not more than a few days ago you were vehemently defending the conservative pro-gun crowd, telling me that a few racist morons on a patriotic facebook page are absolutely not representative for your typical gun owner. But now, you seem to have absolutely no issues with condemning a whole bunch of organizations and basically the entire "anti-gun" crowd based on the Facebook comments by a few deluded soccer moms?
Kinder please. Your bias is showing, hard. If you'd actually read the article a little more carefully, you'd learn that none of the organizations mentioned support or even approve of the practice of SWATing. This entire "news" article is based on nothing but a few morons making inappropriate comments on Facebook, and would be absolutely no different from a liberal website having an article entitled "NRA supports Muslim genocide" based on nothing but the handful of racist remarks that I quoted from the American Patriots Facebook page.
Hypocrisy isn't a nice thing.
Somebody didn't read my tl;dr it seems idiots from already idiotic organizations Idiots FROM, meaning people from a group; not the group itself. Your post has no meaning now and can be discarded
5157
« on: October 03, 2014, 07:40:17 AM »
Kim Jong-Fun is Kim Jong-Done
5158
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:34:20 PM »
http://bearingarms.com/nro-moms-demand-swatting/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate…whether or not the allegedly well-intentioned reformers of Moms Demand Action and GunFreeZone.net are aware of it, they are flirting with disaster. On the surface, Ann Marie’s grubby little hope that police will eventually “have a run in with one of these clowns” may appear to be less threatening than was Ronald Ritchie’s fatal mendacity. But, if Marie were successful, the end result would likely be the same. There is no kind way of putting this, I’m afraid: Ultimately, what we are seeing on the fringes of the gun-control movement is the suggestion that American citizens be “SWATted” for their choices — that, in the name of a political disagreement, one party calls the cops on another and, under false pretenses, puts them in harm’s way. Is this reconcilable with “common sense” change?
“You’re putting the police in a situation where to the best of their knowledge the call is coming from inside the house,” Owens explains. “In the worst case, the perpetrator will say, ‘I’ve killed my wife and kids; come get me if you can.’” In other instances, he will exaggerate or twist the truth to lure authorities into a situation that is not at all as it has been described. In all cases, however, the intention is the same: To harm or to scare the target. Real-world examples abound. tl;dr idiots from already idiotic organizations are supportive of the idea on SWATing gun owners so they'll be put in harms way. This is fracking disgusting and just shows how immature anti-gunners can be
5159
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:23:02 PM »
Niggers are black,
Chicken is fried,
I like purple drank
Lets do some crank
5160
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:13:24 PM »
Probable cause is put down to the officer also. Reasonable suspicion is it sounds like: A suspicion that is reasonable. This includes running from cops, a person stalking around and looking in cars with tools, passing off baggies, drinking an unidentifiable substance in a paper bag, and other things. That all falls under reasonable suspicion. It's reasonable to think a person is trying to breaki into cars by stalking around with tools. It's reasonable to think a person is drinking alcohol in public when it's being consumed from a brown paper bag
Define stalking. Could be a small-time handyman looking for the house he's supposed to be working on/in.
Hell, I've been told I can be inadvertently "stalkery" when I'm looking for something, and I've never committed a serious crime in my life.
It's more that the police officer can just claim some BS if they want to and search you regardless if they like. In any case, as a civilian how do you argue with authority? You can't just say no, that's suspicious, in itself warranting a search, or as far as resisting arrest "on suspicion of x crime"
Peeking around multiple cars and looking through the windows. As I said cars, not houses. If you saw somebody dressed in black at night time, wearing a hooded jacket and gloves, carrying around a screwdriver and a clothes hanger, and looking inside the windows of parked vehicles then it's reasonable to assume they're trying to break into cars A small-time handyman won't be going door to door, walking around houses, and looking inside windows. That's reasonable enough they're trying to break into a house It's not rocket science as to what criminal behavior looks like Officer's can't claim BS excuses because that's not how the law works. It would immediately be thrown out and the officers be disciplined. Cops are not unintelligent people, they know well enough what constitutes as being probable cause and reasonable suspicion It's not suspicious to say no. What you do when being stopped is ask why you're being stopped and ask if you're being detained or arrested. In order to be stopped, not just a cop walking up and saying hi or being friendly, there needs to be the minimum of reasonable suspicion which allows for a detainment. Upon the reasonable suspicion and detainment, probable cause can then start being built which leads to an arrest And as I said, you can't be arrested on the basis of reasonable suspicion, only on probable cause For somebody that sounds like they're trying to say they know the law and are against cops, it's evident to me that you don't know the laws. Try again
Pages: 1 ... 170171172 173174 ... 243
|
Show Posts