![]() |
http://askbuff.com/unemployment.gif
Okay, I'm not saying 6.4% unemployment isn't really really bad, 'cause it is. But doncha love how even though 6.4 is only about 150% of 4.2, the bar representing 6.4 on the graph is eleven times the size of the bar representing 4.2? Ah, Reuters. |
Buff,
Shouldn't you be off somewhere doing a scene? ;-) When you coming back out to LA? |
Check out the big brain on Buff!!
One rule of thumb, never trust graphs, or statistics in "news" stories.... They are used the most to distort the truth.... |
Mike...do you know what the call a Quarter Pounder w/Cheese in France? ;-)
|
Of course....
A royal with Cheese.... JMSCore we are going to be in your neighborhood July 14th - 28th.... Staying in Santa Monica.... I expect to spend some QT with you! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
In this case I don't think it is media bias.
That chart is essentially the same as the one in the actual report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Just switched to a bar graph style.... The actual chart basically puts 4% as the baseline just as reuters did.... |
Correct, sir. Because of the metric system. Great movie.
That date is right around the corner. Definitely looking forward to hanging out....as long as Buff lays off the touchy feely this time ;-) |
Quote:
Good one sarettah!! :rokk: |
TE, do you not think that the beauracrats that have lifetime employement with this gov't, and are over whelming democrat, not biased? Look how the State Department keeps undermining Bush policies.
Just because the top 2-3 people running a department are Republican the 100,000+ employees, lifers tend to be democrats. That and anyone who spends a lifetime working for the gov't probably is too stupid to make it in the real world, and hence puts out misleading graphs ( on purpose or just ignorance? Does it really matter?) Oh and come on the media always manufactures and creates bullshit statistical results. |
Quote:
|
I just downloaded the unemployment data from 1970-2002. The average annual unemployment rate was 6.29% for that period.
|
Quote:
You should take a cue from fellow conservative William Kristol who dismisses the bias and calls it a "crutch" that conservatives have relied on too long. Even fellow conservatives dismissed the BS charges from Ginrich about the State Department. Bush dismissed those types of criticism outright himself as well. |
TE the issues I have with the State Department go way beyond what Gingrich brought up. I am talking about the past 40+ years.... not just one or 2 examples, but systematic issues!
Not paranoid, I see it with my own eye, I wrote a paper on it in undergrad.... |
TE - come on, man. The reactionaries have been beating the "evil state department traitors" since at least the 1940s.
A mere 40 years, Mikey? :rolleyes: Come on, man - that leaves out the period 1945-1963 which reactionaries like you really shouldn't neglect. It contains such rich material as who lost China and the Communists running rampant through the Truman Administration - and Ike is pretty suspect too, when you get right down do it. The problem I have with that whole line of "thought" is that if it were remotely correct, we wouldn't be where we are today. I personally have been hearing that shit since the 1960s - back when folks of your stripe were prediciting that the eeeeeeeevil state department lifers would sabotage American efforts to prevail in the Cold War. Same shit, different fucking decade... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
They're called "quarter pounder" everywhere else in metric Europe ;-) Now what do they call a $5 milk shake in France? |
Quote:
HAHAHA, here too CJ ;) |
even here. Its called a "quart de livre" which literally translate to quarter pounder.
French are snooty fucks. |
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 PM.. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Evil Empire Inc. 2006-2022