- Thread starter
- #21
November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen
A proud Rush Limbaugh supporter^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen
Apparently CON$ervative Christian Gallup is cooking the numbers too.What numbers did I cite? We're not going to allow you to spin this, so what numbers?
Cut and paste the numbers I cited.
Can you not read your own post? Where you quotedSo, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles
and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer
workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were
recalled in August.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed
little change over the month.
The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked
Apparently CON$ervative Christian Gallup is cooking the numbers too.Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted
So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?
The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 8.1% for the month of August, down slightly from 8.3% measured in mid-August and 8.2% for the month of July. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August is also 8.1%, a slight uptick from 8.0% at the end of July.
That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?What numbers did I cite? We're not going to allow you to spin this, so what numbers?
Cut and paste the numbers I cited.
Can you not read your own post? Where you quotedSo, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles
and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer
workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were
recalled in August.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed
little change over the month.
The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked
What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted
So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?
The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked
It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.
And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.
What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked
It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.
And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.
Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.
I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?
It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.
And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.
Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quotedThose numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.
See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?
I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,
Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quotedThose numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.
See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?
I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quoted
Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?
See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?
You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.
And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.
I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.
You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.
And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.
I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.
And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.
Well, my point is that you refuse to support anything you claim.
So let's try these for starters:
1. You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS? Which numbers are "cooked," which not, and what metric do you use to determine which is which?
2. If they UE numbers are "cooked," why does the Gallup poll always agree (accounting for differences in sampling and methodology etc)?
3. What is the exact process of "cooking" the data? From collection to analysis to dissemination, who, how, and why are the data cooked and what is your evidence? (that you don't believe the numbers is not evidence that they're off).
I explained this alreadyYou cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?
How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.
I explained this alreadyYou cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?
How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.
I explained this alreadyYou cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?
How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.
No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.
And of course you didn't answer the other two.
LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.I explained this already
No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.
And of course you didn't answer the other two.
Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.
LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.
And of course you didn't answer the other two.
Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.
LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.
What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.
Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.
LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.
Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.
While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.
Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.
LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.
Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.
While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that most of the public doesn't read the detailed reports is any kind of evidence of manipulation.
Your rabid defense of the BLS numbers. Who in the fuck hired the head of THE Department of labor?Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.
BLS, and Census, and BEA are independent statistical agencies. Main DOL has nothing to do with BLS operations or programs, and no one at main Commerce has anything to do with the running of Census or BEA.Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.
While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.
I'm not sure why you think the fact that most of the public doesn't read the detailed reports is any kind of evidence of manipulation.
Your rabid defense of the BLS numbers. Who in the fuck hired the head of THE Department of labor?Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.