But 1.2 million people didn't leave the labor force. Not even close.

Again,

Quote :

""The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.""

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM. Reason : :]

2/3/2012 1:34:04 PM

if you believe that highlighted passage then truly, goddamn, you are by far the least intelligent poster in TSB.

yeah, God knows everyone is retiring at fucking 55 nowadays.

i dont need a source for that-

all i need to do is walk around my goddamn school or call up any of the surrounding ESC offices that i worked with when doing economic development work in western NC.

youre a joke; an armchair theorist and nothing more.

you are right about one thing though! an obama landslide is truly in the making though not the one i think youre alluding too.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM. Reason : -]

2/3/2012 1:42:03 PM

so 1.2 million people stopped looking for jobs and we have a 'net job growth'


awesome way to 'grow' the economy. thanks mr bama', you almost had us

Quote :

"Read carefully. 1.2 million left the labor force, which is a substantial jump. When you're calculating percentages and a huge number of people are taken out of the equation, it's going to look like things are getting better. In reality, we've just got less people working, and we're squeezing more productivity and of the ones that are working. "

so 1.2 million people just died? or don't need jobs. hahaha. way to throw the figures in your favor....
hahahahahahahahahaha. so this is the logic that got you through CHASS... it's all coming together.

love it

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ,]

2/3/2012 1:53:13 PM

Quote :

"if you believe that highlighted passage then truly, goddamn, you are by far the least intelligent poster in TSB. yeah, God knows everyone is retiring at fucking 55 nowadays. i dont need a source for that- all i need to do is walk around my goddamn school or call up any of the surrounding ESC offices that i worked with when doing economic development work in western NC. youre a joke; an armchair theorist and nothing more. you are right about one thing though! an obama landslide is truly in the making though not the one i think youre alluding too."

I'm quoting this so you can't change how stupid you sound later.

Quote :

"This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population"

It doesn't say all people in those age groups are not looking for work. It said they are less likely to be in the labor force. That just means that these groups have a lower percentage of people looking for work. Not that every single person in these age brackets isn't looking for work. Do you have any capacity for critical thinking?

2/3/2012 1:57:48 PM

^^^Do you ever have anything to offer other than anecdotal evidence? You know who the armchair theorists were? The economics who were predicting 100k less job growth and an increase in unemployment. Don't hate the messenger buddy, I just post facts.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : :]

2/3/2012 1:58:41 PM

just imagine. only 6 or 8 trillion in bailouts and printed money and pretending nobody new is looking for jobs. it somehow still seems anecdotal doesn't it



[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ,]

2/3/2012 2:04:26 PM

What in the fuck? I don't even...

2/3/2012 2:16:06 PM

^reading your posts is like watching the jamaican bobsled team practicing for the olympics


as long as we keep shrinking the labor force we'll have more jobs than actual 'work capable humans' in the USA soon. hell we'll have a negative unemployment rate if we just change the demoninator.

ah. math. the forgotten art of journalism and politics.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ,]

2/3/2012 2:17:30 PM

^^and reposting what i said just to make me look stupid later,

i mean,

ive posted that i would leave TSB forever if it wasnt a landslide at least a dozen times.

i guess you just like to hear yourself talk, or something.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : shrug]

2/3/2012 2:20:13 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't say all people in those age groups are not looking for work. It said they are less likely to be in the labor force. That just means that these groups have a lower percentage of people looking for work. Not that every single person in these age brackets isn't looking for work. Do you have any capacity for critical thinking?"

am i lacking that capacity? no. but you apparently are since you dont understand that dynamic has fundamentally changed over the past several years.

2/3/2012 2:21:48 PM

^ Oh, so you're saying that [ALL] people over the age of 55 tend to not be retired at a higher rate than people age 24-55? Or that people between 16-24 haven't been students at a much higher rate historically than people between 24-55? Obviously I'm missing something here and I'm just too dumb to get it. Can you please explain it to me in very explicit terms and with verifiable facts?

^^^ So the fact that we added more private sector jobs last month than in any month since the recession began is completely insignificant? Are you really going to completely ignore that fact?

2/3/2012 2:34:27 PM

if you cant google "americans retiring later" or something to that effect im afraid theres not much i can do for you sir.

...and the fact that you automatically dont consider students to be working is indicative of a naive worldview.

2/3/2012 2:41:57 PM

Quote :

"Are you really going to completely ignore that fact?"

twe 'gained' a net number of jobs based on lowering the work force by a million people

dude it's obviously political to you to defend your 'team' at this point.

you refuse even do basic arithmetic just to try and defend you political turf.

good day sir

2/3/2012 2:50:27 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't say all people in those age groups are not looking for work. It said they are less likely to be in the labor force. That just means that these groups have a lower percentage of people looking for work. Not that every single person in these age brackets isn't looking for work. Do you have any capacity for critical thinking?"

No one said that all people in those age groups are not looking for work. Just some of them are not looking for work. "Not looking for work" can mean a lot of things. It can mean they gave up. It can mean they decided to go back to school. It can mean they retired. The number alone doesn't tell us that much. The point is that more people left the labor force in January than in the entire year prior. Look at this:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

So, that means more people gave up looking for work, more people decided to stay in school because the job market is awful, et cetera. Point is, when all the numbers are looked at in concert, the long-term outlook still isn't that good. There are still structural problems that have yet to be dealt with. Capital is still flowing out of the United States.

This is all assuming, of course, that the government is giving us a realistic picture of how things are. Who knows. Many of you trust the government. I see a government that is willing to kill, steal, or do whatever it has to line corporate pockets, so I don't trust government numbers.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 2:51:50 PM

Quote :

"This is all assuming, of course, that the government is giving us a realistic picture of how things are. Who knows. Many of you trust the government. I see a government that is willing to kill, steal, or do whatever it has to line corporate pockets, so I don't trust government numbers."

ALL PRAISE OBAMA THE GREAT JOBINATER!

2/3/2012 2:54:57 PM

Quote :

"if you cant google "americans retiring later" or something to that effect im afraid theres not much i can do for you sir. ...and the fact that you automatically dont consider students to be working is indicative of a naive worldview."

I'm not arguing that people aren't retiring later. I'm arguing that compared to people age 24-55, older people are looking for work at a lower rate which you seem to take issue with. And I'm pretty sure if you're a student (which is more likely among the 16-24 age group), you are not counted in unemployment numbers. I'm pretty sure it's been like this for awhile. I'm also pretty sure you're just trolling at this point so I'm going to ignore you.

Quote :

"twe 'gained' a net number of jobs based on lowering the work force by a million people dude it's obviously political to you to defend your 'team' at this point. you refuse even do basic arithmetic just to try and defend you political turf. "

Wrong. Net jobs added was +240k. This means that if there were 10 million total jobs in December, there are now 10.24 million total jobs. Not only that, but these were well paying, private sector jobs. As far as you go, I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you're really this dumb. Either way, I'm going to ignore you too.

Quote :

"No one said that all people in those age groups are not looking for work. Just some of them are not looking for work. "Not looking for work" can mean a lot of things. It can mean they gave up. It can mean they decided to go back to school. It can mean they retired. The number alone doesn't tell us that much. The point is that more people left the labor force in January than in the entire year prior. Look at this: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 So, that means more people gave up looking for work, more people decided to stay in school because the job market is awful, et cetera. Point is, when all the numbers are looked at in concert, the long-term outlook still isn't that good. There are still structural problems that have yet to be dealt with. Capital is still flowing out of the United States."

I'm pretty sure the only thing I argued was that people in those age groups tend to be looking for work at lower rates historically and I feel like my reasons for thinking that are pretty rational. I'm not saying that the 1.2 million number isn't significant. Of course it's going to put a bigger dent in the unemployment rate. I'm not really all that concerned with the rate to be honest. It's good for measuring trends over time, but taken on its own it can mean a great many things. The bigger story here is the net jobs added. That is very significant and it's the strongest data yet in a pattern of strong data. I know we're not out of the woods yet, but we're making progress and several more months of progress will significantly affect the outlook before elections.

Quote :

"This is all assuming, of course, that the government is giving us a realistic picture of how things are. Who knows. Many of you trust the government. I see a government that is willing to kill, steal, or do whatever it has to line corporate pockets, so I don't trust government numbers."

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a George Orwell book too. But if you don't accept these numbers, then what numbers do you accept?

2/3/2012 3:14:50 PM

^you would be better off with a fresh reinstall of your brain OS at this point.

2/3/2012 3:16:58 PM

All I see is you not pointing out how I'm wrong.

2/3/2012 3:50:18 PM

CIA is targeting civilians at funerals:

Quote :

"The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed. The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”. . . . A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts. Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama. There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days. ..Other tactics are also raising concerns. On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban. “A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,” according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent. “True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.” The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. . . . Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders."

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/


much longer article: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

2/5/2012 5:18:29 PM

those people probably needed a good killin. besides, it's not like actions like this will make people in the region not like us

2/5/2012 5:23:43 PM

Obama orders global US Iran asset block

Quote :

"US President Barack Obama has signed an executive order to freeze all Iranian government assets held in America and US banks abroad. "I have determined that additional sanctions are warranted, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation” Obama said in a letter to Congress. Obama claimed Iranian financial activities are posing “continuing and unacceptable risk” to the international financial system. The executive order prevents any Iranian assets deemed within US jurisdiction – including foreign branches of American banks – from being transferred, paid, exported or withdrawn. Obama’s decision comes just four days after the US Senate backed new economic sanctions against Iran. The sanctions targeted companies in joint uranium mining projects and organizations supplying the country with weapons. Congress had previously passed sanctions aimed at institutions doing business with the Iranian Central Bank."

http://rt.com/news/us-block-iran-assets-619/

2/6/2012 6:20:52 PM

^Un-fucking-believable. More here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16914690

Quote :

"Asked if he believed the Jewish state could launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, Mr Obama said: "I don't think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do." He declined to answer directly a question whether Washington would be consulted first, saying only that the US and Israel "have closer military and intelligence consultation... than we've ever had". However, correspondents say that behind the scenes Washington is deeply alarmed by reports that Israel may strike Iran as early as April. US media last week suggested Israel was planning to attack Iran in the spring of 2012, with US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly saying there was a strong likelihood of such an offensive."

I just did some quick research on this executive order, and it apparently bans any aid to Iran--correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote :

"Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order."

IEEPA:

Quote :

"donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations "

2/6/2012 6:41:12 PM

just to throw a little more gas on the fire

http://thehill.com/polls/208761-hill-poll-voters-willing-to-see-us-attack-iran-over-its-nuclear-weapons

Quote :

"Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll. Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure. Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it. "

I would have liked this poll more if it had asked "Should be attack Iran?" rather than "Should we attack Iran to keep them from having a nuclear weapon?" But the conclusions are sorta the same: Quite a few Americans are either not tired of war yet or are really really scared of Iran.

2/6/2012 7:07:12 PM

During the republican primaries, they act like it’s a forgone conclusion that we are going to be dropping some bomb on them soon anyway.

2/6/2012 7:08:54 PM

Quote :

"Americans are either not tired of war"

What war?

2/6/2012 7:30:00 PM

Quote :

"I would have liked this poll more if it had asked "Should be attack Iran?" rather than "Should we attack Iran to keep them from having a nuclear weapon?" But the conclusions are sorta the same: Quite a few Americans are either not tired of war yet or are really really scared of Iran."

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=620113&page=10

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 7:37 PM. Reason : moved to Iran thread]

2/6/2012 7:31:11 PM

Quote :

"Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising Posted by CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin (CNN) - In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action."

wheres your hero now?

Quote :

""This decision was not made overnight,” one campaign official said. “ The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm.""

[Edited on February 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason : -]

2/7/2012 10:10:34 AM

Quote :

"Chief campaign strategist David Axelrod defends President Obama's decision to embrace Super PACs after he opposed them. Citing "Karl Rove" and the "Koch Brothers" on the right, Axelrod says the Obama campaign feels unable to "compete with the array of guns pointed at us." "We have a stronger fundraising base among small donors today than we did four years ago," Axelrod said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today. "So that’s promising. But we're up against a tremendous amount of money here. And so, you know, we’ll continue to raise money for our campaign to start our operations. And we’ll see what this Super PAC does. I don’t imagine that’s going to be able to compete with the array of guns pointed at us, but it may help offset that advantage to some degree.""

i really hate david axelrod. hes one of those people where you can just predict what hes going to say each time he opens his mouth and you know its going to piss you off.

he reminds me of a whiny, political dr. phil.






at least its obvious obama now is scared and this blows a hole in the current liberal dogma of "all the republicans are a joke; this will be a piece of cake." shit just got serious-

im sure the knee jerk reaction here will be "oh har. i cant wait to see obama hit a butterfly with a hammer, classic!" i dont think thats what this is at all-

[Edited on February 7, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : -]

2/7/2012 12:18:05 PM

It would take every gun on planet Earth to blow a hole all the way through the ironclad ridiculousness of the Republicans. The fact that they're well-funded puts them on par with a very expensive traveling circus.

2/7/2012 12:33:57 PM

catholic church "declares war" on obama, harry reids back with new internet regulation "cyber security" bill...

looks like you guys are trying to get as much done as possible before you get the boot ey?

2/7/2012 12:43:57 PM

Yeah I'm sure Catholics are just gonna line right up to vote for a Mormon



Hopefully this is the election that banishes the GOP to the kids table forever.

2/7/2012 12:55:30 PM

Quote :

"“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue. Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it. “This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said."

i dare say theyll vote for anyone besides obama,

2/7/2012 2:43:13 PM

I find the right's sudden embrace of both the Jews and Catholics hilarious while at the same time attempting to claim a monopoly on knowledge pertaining to the founding of this country....

2/7/2012 2:50:48 PM

The contraception requirement is a non-issue to actual voters. This is just the Catholic church trying to pretend it's still relevant to election year politics.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

Quote :

"...a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don't believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit. ...Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents."

Besides that, something like 99% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives. Not a single one of them is going to vote for Romney over this issue.

2/7/2012 3:19:41 PM

And if the Catholics lose this battle, I suspect their next step might be to close down their charity hospitals. A big win for the poor when the government spends its time harassing the only people actually delivering care.

2/7/2012 7:19:26 PM

Churches are still exempt.

It's funny they are getting so furious about having to offer GASP birth control.

LOL

It's like muslims being pissed that they can't cover their faces for drivers license photos.

2/7/2012 7:49:12 PM

Quote :

"wheres your hero now? "

fighting fire with fire. like he said, unilateral disarmament is for suckers.

2/7/2012 8:14:39 PM

^http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html

Koch Brothers and some others are contributing ONE HUNDRED, MILLION, BA-JILLION, DOLLARS.

And this is exactly why Super PACS are bad, because a handful of plutocrats can outfund and castrate a democracy with their deep pockets.

2/7/2012 9:11:36 PM

Holy shit, the Catholic church is really going to fight this battle?

"Hey practitioners, we just wanted to remind you how ridiculously out of touch we are."

2/7/2012 9:24:36 PM

Quote :

"It's funny they are getting so furious about having to offer GASP birth control."

If their workers don't want it and they don't want to offer it, then why are we forcing them to? Let them pay for their birth control out of their salaries like it should be. It is wrong to drive up the cost of health insurance just for the fun of it.

2/8/2012 12:02:50 AM

What makes you think the workers don't want it?

And it's wrong to promote the idea that birth control is evil.

2/8/2012 12:06:37 AM

I'm sick of GOP horseshit. Unfortunately for them, they are as terrible at looking good as they are at being good. They should have used these 4 years to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney and try to clear their names if they wanted to have a chance this time around. They look crazier than ever before now. I swear to God, I hope every asshole Republican in every fucking minute little office job this election gets shit-canned with a vengeance and the nail in the coffin is set on this disgrace of a political party.

I'm not holding out, but I can't help but feel like we are REALLY close to waking the sleeping giant in this country and for fucks sake I hope this is the year.

2/8/2012 1:02:14 AM

Nope. Americans are still dumb as ever.

2/8/2012 1:07:15 AM

Quote :

"It is wrong to drive up the cost of health insurance just for the fun of it. "

I can admit its possible that birth control makes a health insurance plan more expensive, but I'd have to see some numbers before I actually accepted it. Pregnancies and all the related care are REALLY expensive, much more than a birth control prescription.

There's evidence that quite a few catholic's use birth control, if it cut down on the number of pregnancies by even a third, then I expect you would see an overall cost savings.

2/8/2012 6:26:37 AM

Quote :

"I'm sick of GOP horseshit. Unfortunately for them, they are as terrible at looking good as they are at being good. They should have used these 4 years to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney and try to clear their names if they wanted to have a chance this time around. They look crazier than ever before now. I swear to God, I hope every asshole Republican in every fucking minute little office job this election gets shit-canned with a vengeance and the nail in the coffin is set on this disgrace of a political party. I'm not holding out, but I can't help but feel like we are REALLY close to waking the sleeping giant in this country and for fucks sake I hope this is the year."

looks like Jared Lee Loughner not only has internet in prison but a grammar tutor as well!

2/8/2012 7:49:25 AM

Quote :

"What makes you think the workers don't want it?"

Because they chose to work the one place that wouldn't offer it.

Quote :

"I can admit its possible that birth control makes a health insurance plan more expensive, but I'd have to see some numbers before I actually accepted it. Pregnancies and all the related care are REALLY expensive, much more than a birth control prescription. "

Which is why health insurance plans often don't cover birth related expenses. If a women wants birth control she will pay for it. Just as every women I know that wanted kids was willing to pay for the delivery.

2/8/2012 10:07:07 AM

Quote :

"It's like muslims being pissed that they can't cover their faces for drivers license photos."

No, it's more like muslims being pissed that they can't cover their faces at a mosque or a muslim hospital.

Quote :

"I can admit its possible that birth control makes a health insurance plan more expensive, but I'd have to see some numbers before I actually accepted it."

why the heck do you have to see numbers? it's common sense. If McDonald's tomorrow started offering free fries with every purchase of a hamburger, you'd damn well expect the price of the hamburger to go up, probably equivalent to the cost of fries. Why would you expect a new mandate for insurance not to make insurance cost more, when every single mandate in the past has made insurance more expensive?

2/8/2012 1:23:01 PM

Quote :

"And if the Catholics lose this battle, I suspect their next step might be to close down their charity hospitals."

Lol that's absolutely absurd. Charity's a central tenant of the Catholic Church, and further, their prime prime recruitment source.

Quote :

"A big win for the poor when the government spends its time harassing the only people actually delivering care."

You mean, "the people taking government funding and enjoying tax-exempt status for their recruit-the-vulnerable centers"

Also sorry to burst your bubble but the Catholics making a stink about birth control are a minority:




Let them pay for their birth control out of their salaries like it should be.

Quote :

"It is wrong to drive up the cost of health insurance just for the fun of it."

Lmao please explain to me how a greater prevalence of birth control drives up health insurance costs. I really want to know how having a shitload of unwanted babies on their parents' plans would not drive costs up higher than the cost of condoms to prevent them.

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2012 1:56:27 PM

free birth control should be available in every corner store

2/8/2012 1:58:12 PM

Quote :

"No, it's more like muslims being pissed that they can't cover their faces at a mosque or a muslim hospital."

No, it's more like Muslims being pissed that non-Muslim women visiting their tax-exempt mosques don't have to cover their faces.

2/8/2012 2:01:09 PM