Riiiiiight.... 5 weeks before the election... and 18 days later... After saying "Well, maybe I said it in-artfully"...and after about a dozen teabaggers jumped on it and said, "Right on, Brother!!!"...he suddenly gets an attack of "Whoops...." (Gee, is my cynicism showing?)
You can't make this stuff up...
You have NO FRIGGIN' IDEA how much I "plan to keep it up."
Democracy4Sale wrote: Riiiiiight.... 5 weeks before the election... and 18 days later... After saying "Well, maybe I said it in-artfully"...and after about a dozen teabaggers jumped on it and said, "Right on, Brother!!!"...he suddenly gets an attack of "Whoops...." (Gee, is my cynicism showing?)
You can't make this stuff up...
You have NO FRIGGIN' IDEA how much I "plan to keep it up."
[youtube:3ulofkwr]
[/youtube:3ulofkwr]
As if your 'keeping it up" makes any difference to anyone on the planet
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
NPR had a segment on the unemployment numbers that was pretty funny. Their people on the street all believed the books have been cooked, but the NPR reporter was whining, the numbers are true!!! They are! They are! They are!
When do you think the revised numbers will come out? The day after the election?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Here's Why The Jobs Report Conspiracy Theory Is Baseless
[T]he figures are based on a representative sample, the government narrows down exactly how many people in different categories it will survey before the computer program does its work. For example, a certain number of people surveyed live in urban areas in Texas, in order to represent the share of total U.S. residents who live in urban areas in Texas. That same weighting is done for areas across the country.
The government minimizes variability by interviewing only so many new households every month. On a given month, roughly one-eighth of households surveyed are being interviewed by the government for the survey for the first time, according to Kosanovich. That is because the government interviews the same households up to eight times over a year and a half after randomly selecting them, in order to prevent the unemployment rate from changing because a given cohort was significantly different from the one before.
"We report the data that we get from the survey directly," Kosanovich said. "There's no political influence on our collection or data estimation or release of data."
Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an independent agency that typically has only one political appointee: the commissioner. But BLS commissioner Keith Hall, a Bush appointee, left in January, and Congress has yet to confirm President Obama's nominee.
Others have noted that it is impossible for the BLS to have made these numbers up for political reasons. Hall told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that "the numbers are what they are." And Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein breaks down some of the numbers in the jobs report that are drawing the suspicion of conspiracy theorists.
The short story is that the job truthers' claims are baseless. No conspiracy here.
I'm sooo not interested in what the tin-foil-hat crowd has. If the President had such control over it, why didn't Bush exert his influence to cover up the 750,000-800,000 jobs/month that he was losing by the end of 2008? ("BLS commissioner Keith Hall, a Bush appointee, left in January, [2012]")
Y'know, if you don't like Obama...Don't vote for him...
