Forgive my rudeness. Good morning, or should I say "good afternoon" hrbl, debunked, ferret and others
You really are an idiot. These numbers are not fabricated. They come directly from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. As far as math snake oil goes, I'm sorry you don't understand math. As I said, you're an idiot. How did I skim over 9-11? Bush did not enherit a recession. That is a RepubliCON lie. Historical Periods of Recession by Presidential Terms You are someone who, by your own admission, does not know that much about the unemployment rate. Hence, your ignorant comment about Clinton NEVER acheiving a 4.9% unemployment rate despite the fact that 45% of his eight years was spent at or below 4.9. I, on the other hand, am someone who has been following the unemployment rate for years. I do know that the unemployment rate does not get released on the second day of the month. You don't know that because you haven't been tracking it. The only way those numbers could possibly be released so early is to be made up. It's a matter of practicle productivity. Perhaps you should start following the unemployment rate by going to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics web site every day starting on the first of the month until you see the new numbers. Then do that for a couple of years and see how long it takes for the numbers to come out. My site is a collection of information I have gathered. All that information is sourced. Go read it. http://www.caseagainstbush.com
If that sounds harsh, just read his idiotic comments. The dude really doesn't get math or he chooses not to get it because the numbers are not favorable to the idiot he wants to support. I have spent the last couple of years objectively gathering information on the subject. I know what I'm talking about. Unlike him, I don't have to cherry pick the numbers. I begin at the beginning of each presidents' term and see what the country looked like at the end. The single best table on the subject can be found here. I don't have to make up anything because I have the facts on my side. Just so you know, I did not set out to create a case against Bush. I simply began looking up the facts and those facts bore out to be a case against Bush and the Republican party. It's just s imple fact that Republicans are bad the country.
They are fabricated. The US Labor Bureau posts the percentages each month, for each president. News sources and economists use them as indicators of current performance and historical performance. They don't suit your purpose, so you create your own math to to make them seem worse than they are. Likewise, I could come up with my own math to make anyone look better or worse. You don't post a reference to others using your snake oil, because others don't. You are attempting to divide percentages that are already derived for impact. I don't mind the third grade name calling. It's reflective of your low self-esteem. Put others down to raise yourself up. By fabricating your snake oil math and spamming your site as a resource. Many economists, which you are not, have reported it, and I posted at least one of those. You have countered with? Ah yes, your site, because you say so. Yes he did, as indicated by the sources I provided. Not by some magical mystery snake oil resources from my own site, but varied resources from various reporting. I suppose I could create my own site, put up some magic numbers and claim it as a resource in every argument. Do you find that works well? I take the hit on the 4.9% and explained it. I don't take your fabricated numbers and proof that anything you say is valid by spamming the thread up with your site. It's biased and you saying it's not doesn't make it so. One need not vist a site every day to review it's historical data. It's there. Might I add, your snake oil numbers are not. Your site is a biased joke. Name calling and "take my word for it" coupled with spamming seems to be the best you can offer. Not that I had any higher expectation!
Do you have anything to say on the subject or just want continue to be Gtech groupie and defend your big daddy?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective ob·jec·tive Audio pronunciation of "objective" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv) adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. 1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. 2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually
Look debunked, "caseagainstbush" is now objective! gworld, is cab your huckleberry? This is just too much fun!
Exactly what number is fabricated? None of them are fabricated, so you are a liar. Please show me the publication date of the historical data. I haven't seen any such dates. So the only way to know the actual date of publication is to check the site daily.
They are all fabricated. The unemployment rates that are published each month, indicate the percentages used as a reference of measure for economists and those that publish their findings. 4.9%, 5.2%, 6.4%, whatever the number may be. Liar? Real classy. My references are post on previous pages. Of course, the actual unemployment numbers don't match your fabricated ones. But then whose does? No ones, that's whose
Take the word of the U.S. Census Bureau, Forbes statistics, U.S. Department of Labor History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - 1996, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of the Census Historical Poverty Tables, Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2001 http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005/08/republican-presidents-are-bad-for.html or you can continue to avoid the real issue with your RepubliCON lies and smoke and mirrors. So typical. Just like yo-yo said from the get-go.
Yo-yo is too funny! Wish he would get involved with the debates, instead of peaking around the corner after you post with "yeah, yeah, what he said!" I do take the word of the US Bureau of Labor, and the unemployment percentages they post each month during both Democrat and Republican administrations alike. What I won't do, is accept snake oil math that attempts to inflate them for meausure, because they don't fit your agenda. Nor will accept your site as a resource. Glad we could clear that up!
GTech, I would love to jump back in the debate but to be honest, I dont have time to go through all the topics and try and figure out exactly what the "topic of the page" is. These threads seem to jump topics once per page and I am behind in work as it is. FYI, this week I will only have time to jump in for a sec here and there. Sure is an entertaining read though. Looks like gworld added a new member to his club.
zman, no problem bud. It's all in fun (at least for me) anyway. The current shift revolves around cab attempting to inflate unemployment numbers by further dividing US Bureau of Labor unemployment figures with snake oil math to make them appear higher and more impacted than they are. You know how it is. When the real numbers are not good enough, make up your own measuring system. Basically, it's a "no it isn't" - "yes it is" - "no it isn't" - "yes it is" match of wits! Maybe we should get hrbl to start something different and get back to some real debating. I enjoy good ribbing as much as the next one, but at the end of the day, it's all water under the bridge. I'll be stepping out for some shopping when my wife gets home (next thirty minutes).
Good idea. That way maybe I can jump back in from time to time. What do ya say hrbl? Any ideas for a new thread?
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Good topics off hand gun control, medical marijuana, need for a good third party to straighten both parties out, mistakes made by the US before the new Gulf War in which we supported Saddam and or did not take his ass out when we should have, open to any others myself. I'm sure I'll disagree with someone or at least give it my best shot. On the brighter side I just purchased a new notebook since my current one is not playing nice with DP, it's a cheapy but as long as it loads the threads correctly I'll be happy! edit----Just thought of one, why the Green Bay Packers suck so bad! Man the part of the game I watched last night was painful, especially the first minute.