BLS economists donating to Obama

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

I don't follow you. What would that establish?

I don't have to justify any argument, because I'm not even making an argument. Conspiracy theorists are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim is that the most recent unemployment report, that just happens to coincide with a recent Presidential debate (big conspiracy theory red flag), was politically manipulated by the current administration to show a false unemployment record.

That is an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that the BLS report is accurate, but I AM saying that it is no more or less accurate than any previous BLS report on unemployment. TheGreatGatsby used a premise that the BLS is known for working last minute, or having shoddy methodologies, or something along those lines (I think I'm at least in the ballpark), and if that's the case, then those methodologies have always been in place and doesn't that prove me case even more? It is a ridiculous claim, and like all ridiculous claims, it should be ridiculed. The only two premises are that the report happened two days after a debate, and that a couple of BLS employees made small campaign contributions and that it constitutes a conflict of interest. You'd have better luck supporting an elephant with 10-pound test fishing line than you would supporting this claim with those premises.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

There's an old saying
You do not allow the fox to guard the hen house.
You do not allow bank robbers to be bank guards
You do not allow drunk drivers to drive on race day.
And you do not all inmates at a maximum security prison to guard themselves.
Someone who donates to obama and has access to the data for the unemployment numbers, and those numbers do not MATCH REALITY COOKED.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

WOW SOMEONE ENJOY'S ADMITTING TO BEING STUPID.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

I don't follow you. What would that establish?

I don't have to justify any argument, because I'm not even making an argument. Conspiracy theorists are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim is that the most recent unemployment report, that just happens to coincide with a recent Presidential debate (big conspiracy theory red flag), was politically manipulated by the current administration to show a false unemployment record.

That is an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that the BLS report is accurate, but I AM saying that it is no more or less accurate than any previous BLS report on unemployment. TheGreatGatsby used a premise that the BLS is known for working last minute, or having shoddy methodologies, or something along those lines (I think I'm at least in the ballpark), and if that's the case, then those methodologies have always been in place and doesn't that prove me case even more? It is a ridiculous claim, and like all ridiculous claims, it should be ridiculed. The only two premises are that the report happened two days after a debate, and that a couple of BLS employees made small campaign contributions and that it constitutes a conflict of interest. You'd have better luck supporting an elephant with 10-pound test fishing line than you would supporting this claim with those premises.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

There's an old saying
You do not allow the fox to guard the hen house.
You do not allow bank robbers to be bank guards
You do not allow drunk drivers to drive on race day.
And you do not all inmates at a maximum security prison to guard themselves.
Someone who donates to obama and has access to the data for the unemployment numbers, and those numbers do not MATCH REALITY COOKED.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

WOW SOMEONE ENJOY'S ADMITTING TO BEING STUPID.

I'm disappointed. Here I thought we were engaging in something approximating reasonable discourse. I actually had some respect for you up to that point.

Your old saying has no relevance. Employees of BLS haven't suddenly been allowed to make campaign contributions to candidates, they have ALWAYS been allowed to. They are U.S. citizens. They have that right. Are you suggesting that we take away the right of BLS employees to spend their money on campaign contributions? Did you do yourself a favor and research as I suggested and see for yourself that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates? This premise has ZERO MERIT.

Let me guess, your next reply will be something along the lines of "you're REALLY stupid," or "liar liar pants on fire?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't follow you. What would that establish?

I don't have to justify any argument, because I'm not even making an argument. Conspiracy theorists are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim is that the most recent unemployment report, that just happens to coincide with a recent Presidential debate (big conspiracy theory red flag), was politically manipulated by the current administration to show a false unemployment record.

That is an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that the BLS report is accurate, but I AM saying that it is no more or less accurate than any previous BLS report on unemployment. TheGreatGatsby used a premise that the BLS is known for working last minute, or having shoddy methodologies, or something along those lines (I think I'm at least in the ballpark), and if that's the case, then those methodologies have always been in place and doesn't that prove me case even more? It is a ridiculous claim, and like all ridiculous claims, it should be ridiculed. The only two premises are that the report happened two days after a debate, and that a couple of BLS employees made small campaign contributions and that it constitutes a conflict of interest. You'd have better luck supporting an elephant with 10-pound test fishing line than you would supporting this claim with those premises.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

There's an old saying
You do not allow the fox to guard the hen house.
You do not allow bank robbers to be bank guards
You do not allow drunk drivers to drive on race day.
And you do not all inmates at a maximum security prison to guard themselves.
Someone who donates to obama and has access to the data for the unemployment numbers, and those numbers do not MATCH REALITY COOKED.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

WOW SOMEONE ENJOY'S ADMITTING TO BEING STUPID.

I'm disappointed. Here I thought we were engaging in something approximating reasonable discourse. I actually had some respect for you up to that point.

Your old saying has no relevance. Employees of BLS haven't suddenly been allowed to make campaign contributions to candidates, they have ALWAYS been allowed to. They are U.S. citizens. They have that right. Are you suggesting that we take away the right of BLS employees to spend their money on campaign contributions? Did you do yourself a favor and research as I suggested and see for yourself that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates? This premise has ZERO MERIT.

Let me guess, your next reply will be something along the lines of "you're REALLY stupid," or "liar liar pants on fire?"

Stupid is stupid and that's what you're being right now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are the ones who aren't also lying? You dumbass NaziCons...

Did you just concede that some of the economists at BLS are fudging the numbers?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There's an old saying
You do not allow the fox to guard the hen house.
You do not allow bank robbers to be bank guards
You do not allow drunk drivers to drive on race day.
And you do not all inmates at a maximum security prison to guard themselves.
Someone who donates to obama and has access to the data for the unemployment numbers, and those numbers do not MATCH REALITY COOKED.

WOW SOMEONE ENJOY'S ADMITTING TO BEING STUPID.

I'm disappointed. Here I thought we were engaging in something approximating reasonable discourse. I actually had some respect for you up to that point.

Your old saying has no relevance. Employees of BLS haven't suddenly been allowed to make campaign contributions to candidates, they have ALWAYS been allowed to. They are U.S. citizens. They have that right. Are you suggesting that we take away the right of BLS employees to spend their money on campaign contributions? Did you do yourself a favor and research as I suggested and see for yourself that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates? This premise has ZERO MERIT.

Let me guess, your next reply will be something along the lines of "you're REALLY stupid," or "liar liar pants on fire?"

Stupid is stupid and that's what you're being right now.

True, but my stupidity comes from expecting that you will see your obvious lack of logic. In that respect I am admittedly stupid, and stubborn.

This is an all or nothing situation. BLS employees have always been allowed to contribute to candidates. They are also allowed to be Democrats or Republicans. Without admitting it, you are suggesting that BLS employees not be allowed to have any political affiliation of any kind nor have any Democratic or Republican thoughts. So, if BLS unemployment reports are subject to political influence, then they have ALWAYS been subject to political influence. The claim that the newest report is SUDDENLY skewed and all previous reports were not or less so is a load of crap. You calling me stupid is not going to erase a basic bit of logic that anybody, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to grasp.

So, please, tell me, with some kind of support that can actually sustain the claim, what could possibly make this most recent support so special? If I'm stupid I'd like to at least know in what regard so I may correct my idiocy.