Obama Failed Young Black Males

[Weatherman2020]

 

[B. Kidd]

View attachment 81318

The leftist hive only believes BLS stats an' graphs.......

 

[beagle9]

Some real stretching going on there.

Almost 8 years in office and the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites. If Obama is unwilling to do anything to help his own people, why should the rest of us trust he's going to do anything to help the country?

Ok, so what exactly was Obama supposed to do for what you suggest is his own people ? Obama's job was to work for all Americans, and not just for one group in which some are trying to tie him to by skin color. Their are blacks who figured he should just break open the Treasury, and give them everything they felt they deserved, and do this because he is black ?

Whites were put on the defence by Obama from the beginning, because of his (what whites figured by his speak and body language), was a code phrase used when he said "today we will fundamentally change this nation" after elected. Then when he went about doing what he said he would do, and in the ways that he was doing it, the whites figured "see I told ya so".

The whites were sitting back hoping that Obama would work for all of the American people, and to protect the Constitution of the United States. Then their were large numbers of blacks that figured Obama was going to work exclusively for them, and that he was going to right the wrongs by using the power of his office to do what they expected of him to do. I think both groups were disappointed in Obama, but we're they right in their assessments of this president, and were they right by what they expected out of this President ? I would say that Obama was in a no win situation, but then Obama opened his mouth in a very liberal way, and took responsibility for all his actions in which many had accused him of from both sides.

Did Obama lead the nation & some parts of the world into a divided one, and this by trying to play one side of the issues against the other side of the issues in a very biased way ? It's been an interesting 8 years that's for sure.

 

[Londoner]

The source article is from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank notorious for making the data fit their paid-for conclusions.

Their research would never survive peer-review, which is why they created a think tank.

 

[Conservative65]

The source article is from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank notorious for making the data fit their paid-for conclusions.

Their research would never survive peer-review, which is why they created a think tank.

Oh, yet another one that equates dislike/disagreement with the source as it being incorrect. There isn't but one thing that makes it incorrect and you not agreeing isn't that one thing.

 

[B. Kidd]

The source article is from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank notorious for making the data fit their paid-for conclusions.

Their research would never survive peer-review, which is why they created a think tank.

senor.

 

[Londoner]

Recall Brian Anderson's use of AEI's suspicious research on liberal bias in the media. As the below paragraph suggests, AEI likes twisting the data to fit their paid-for conclusions.

Quoted at length
"The AEI paper supports a controversial thesis using multiple and progressively more esoteric statistical techniques, rendering the argument difficult for anyone without advanced statistical training (and many who do have such training) to understand. This technique allows the authors -- as well as those, like Anderson, those who cite the study -- to exaggerate what the data actually show.

Consider sentences like this one: "Indeed, all of those results imply a large bias in coverage ranging from 16.3 to 24.1 percentage points, though the results for the top 10 newspapers are statistically significant at only the .20 [p-value] level for a two-tailed t-test." As anyone trained in statistics knows, significance at the .20 level is no significance at all, since it means that one out of every five times the observed result would have appeared at random. The commonly accepted level for "real" significance is the .05 level, though scholars regularly report results that reach the .10 level of significance (discussions of statistical significance and the meaning of p-values can be found here and here). Lott and Hassett even report as meaningful results that reach "significance" at the .30 level, which any scholar would dismiss out of hand, though they ignored results at similar significance levels that countered their "liberal bias" thesis by showing coverage favoring Republican presidents."

 

[B. Kidd]

Recall Brian Anderson's use of AEI's suspicious research on liberal bias in the media. As the below paragraph suggests, AEI likes twisting the data to fit their paid-for conclusions.

Point is: the only way to gain employment at AEI is if you create or use bogus data that proves republican talking points.

Quoted at length
"The AEI paper supports a controversial thesis using multiple and progressively more esoteric statistical techniques, rendering the argument difficult for anyone without advanced statistical training (and many who do have such training) to understand. This technique allows the authors -- as well as those, like Anderson, those who cite the study -- to exaggerate what the data actually show.

Consider sentences like this one: "Indeed, all of those results imply a large bias in coverage ranging from 16.3 to 24.1 percentage points, though the results for the top 10 newspapers are statistically significant at only the .20 [p-value] level for a two-tailed t-test." As anyone trained in statistics knows, significance at the .20 level is no significance at all, since it means that one out of every five times the observed result would have appeared at random. The commonly accepted level for "real" significance is the .05 level, though scholars regularly report results that reach the .10 level of significance (discussions of statistical significance and the meaning of p-values can be found here and here). Lott and Hassett even report as meaningful results that reach "significance" at the .30 level, which any scholar would dismiss out of hand, though they ignored results at similar significance levels that countered their "liberal bias" thesis by showing coverage favoring Republican presidents."

Still need a quasi-modo.