http://www.brofist.org/g Live RSS feed for http://www.brofist.org/g en'; http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#769

angry white people

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#767

>>763
Yeah, I'll back you up backing me up.
Besides, it takes an incredible lack of mental capacity to lose to Wacko 15-1 in a simple fighting game, so we shouldn't really expect him to be able to have an actual discussion.

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/730.html#766 >>757
me 2

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#765 >>762
Oh, sorry bout that then.

also, 10 year census, that's what happens lol

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#764 >>762

I told you they probably assumed that those people died! Take into account the amount of people over 65 that died in 2007 was like around 200,000, take that by a multiple of 10.

That said, I dont know. Economists usually dont fuck with numbers like that because it tends to negatively affect the following forecasts. Though I could go on to explain why these fudged forecasts may be a GOOD thing just for conversations sake.

>>754

>obviously loaded title to get attention, Obama doesnt even mention Jesus would agree with him

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#763

>>761

This. Yura may be autistic and republican but I bet if we met in real life we could have a civil discussion about things and respect the fact that the other isnt an idiot.

picture related its whenever you or wacko talk and remind me your race is one percentage point below retards in level 1 literacy rate for basic prose

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#762 >>752
>http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/02/03/whats-behind-the-unemployment-rate-drop/
>"There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson (Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Department of Labor, who works directly under the Secretary of Labor*) commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died."
ahahahahahahahaha this is funny

>>758
I'm very mad that you've insinuated that I don't know what unemployment is.

>>759
>average american

>>761
got you are back yurichan

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#761

>>759
>can't read
>ignorant

it's people like you who let populists into washington in the first place

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#760
]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#759

>paragraphs
>politics

Reading and politics is for gaylords. I'd rather smoke weed.

pic related, how i feel whenever kanau talks

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#758
]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/730.html#757

>Your categories and demographics
>No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far. You can add or edit interests and demographics at any time.

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#755
]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#754

>>749
I got your back sklin; ron paul 2012, kanau's opinion is probably wrong

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

]]> http://www.brofist.org/g/res/726.html#752 >>748
>Meaning the number of those who ARE in the labor force also got increased, as well as those who arent.
Yes, but the amount at which the number of those
not in labor force was increased by much more. See 1.2 million added to 'not in labor force' and .25 million added to 'civilian labor force'.

Also, it is precisely that because of such census/yearly/seasonal adjustments that reports like these should be taken with a grain of salt and not used as evidence that things are getting better, as in >>751.

>>750
I know what unemployment is. Can you stop? My point is that removing such persons from the labor force is an incorrect method to report 'unemployment' as they'll have to rely on an alternate income source (namely welfare/food stamps, which isn't viable in the long term) until they're able to find a job again.

>I don't understand why these numbers would be bullshit, why are they trying to print out better numbers?
So that the media can report these numbers to the public without disclosing what it really means. See >>751 as to why fudging numbers is a big deal.

]]>