Home Forums Classifieds GT Store Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups


Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-08-2012, 12:07   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
Of course, it wouldn't be a scandal if they hadn't lied.

Yet this only seems to come up when people do not like the numbers. Obama is president, unemployment goes down = numbers must be rigged. Obama is president, unemployment goes up = numbers are gospel.

If the numbers were rigged, why didn't they bring the unemployment down below 8% a long time ago when he promised the stimulus would do this?

When you pick and choose whether or not you believe the numbers based on your political party affiliation, you lose all credibility. The numbers are either real or they aren't, and that applies to all administrations. If Romney wins the election, I bet you'll see most of the posters in this thread quoting the falling unemployment rate as an indication of his success (and they'd be right). However, myself and 1 or 2 other people in this thread will be the only ones who can effectively do that without looking like a hypocrite - because our position on the unemployment rate is consistent irrespective of who is in office.

So you define a liberal as someone who does not believe there is a massive conspiracy surrounding the unemployment rate? That's a new one. Apparently your political repertoire only goes as far as "if you disagree with me, you're a liberal!"

No, I accept them because your conspiracy theory is filled with holes and contradictions, as are all conspiracy theories. There is no consistency in your argument, unless you're claiming that the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy since its inception - but I've yet to see a single person say that. They only have a problem with it when it suits their agenda. Oddly enough, these will be the first people to laugh and mock liberals 2 years from now when the far left refuses to accept that unemployment went down under Romney. Mark my words.

You're attempting to draw equivalencies between singular events that are specific to one administration. The unemployment rate has been calculated by the same department for many, many years across many administrations - this is one of the fundamental reasons that your theory does not make sense.

I am at least willing to admit that many Administrations may have bent the numbers when it suited them and this is just an example.

what is so difficult to grasp about that?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:53.

GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
GT Store

Users Currently Online: 937
256 Members
681 Guests

Most users ever online: 4,867
May 19, 2015 at 1:03