- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Data is what drives liberals crazy and leads to the personal attacks levied against individuals here.
It;s amusing watching you try that line, and then be a total hypocrite about it. When I cited Texas deficit data....all you did was throw insults. You even tried to call the Republican Comptroller a Democrat.
I can take the personal attacks up to a point but then it gets to the point of being over the top and will lead to putting someone on ignore either officially or simply ignoring their posts on the board.
That's largely because you cannot refute their points and they make a mockery of your arguments.
When I post data I put it into context.
And that context is almost always wrong.
I believe what OC is talking about is the Discouraged Workers data. That term, discouraged workers, came about in 1994 and was a way to eliminate workers from the unemployment count. I wonder if there is anyone here that believes discouraged workers aren't unemployed and shouldn't be counted?
Way to be more dishonest here. Your argument was that you were arguing that the cumulative discouraged workers was doubling every month, ergo Obama bad. People pointed out how the chart was not cumulative. You threw insults at them rather then actually stop and think about if it was or wasn't. Furthermore, when we applied you asinine logic to the other tables, it means that the US population was doubling monthly. Did you even stop to think, hey maybe this isn't right? You were so adamant about attacking Obama that you failed to even understand the table you were citing. Sheik is right in that you do not understand the data you post.
Now the question is the number for the month or cumulative?
Obviously cumulative. The past months have been in the high single digits to low double digits. If it was for the month, total discouraged workers would be nearly half the population of the United States. Does that make any sense? Well, that would require you to actually stop and think about it. That ain't going to happen.
I still am not sure but I am not sure that it really matters.
That is appalling you still don't know.
What matters is the labor force number and the total number employed which comes from the BLS. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BLS, it reports non partisan data,like it or not. That data didn't seem to be a problem when Clinton was in the WH so why is it a problem now?
Nice fallacy of changing the subject. Rather than address how you cannot understand your own data... you try to change the subject. Your dishonestly knows no bounds.
Anyway, I understand that data can cause the glazed look in some, but noticed that liberals have no problem posting data from places like the CBO even though they don't understand how CBO works. I will try to use less data but won't be communicating with those who generate personal attacks.
Really? People you disagree with don't understand how the CBO works?
This is rich coming from a guy who argued that BLS cumulative tables were monthly changes when it meant the US populated doubled monthly.