goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on December 14, 2011, 06:33:53 PM
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FFoxneverstopslying.jpg&hash=4dc9c6ef9b535d55746aa77922ac8597fc484a42)
-
fair and balanced Y axis
-
When was the last time we had a decent president? And please don't say Clinton, that pigfuker!
-
fair and balanced Y axis
If you're implying it should be more of a straight line, I agree. :cheers:
Sent from my TerreStar Genus using TapaTalk
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
-
:lol:
-
:lol:
-
For the 'tards :johndoug:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.mediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fitem%2Ffnc-an-20111212-markedchart.jpg&hash=a1594cf6e954da813f31eb1cb764834f1b9b1d18)
-
Everyone knows the summer heat makes a %9.2 alot closer to a %10.0 rather than a %9.0
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
Go ahead and plot it out and you will find that should be more of a straight line, which is what I was saying. Those that can read numbers will know the line is not accurate. :rolleyes:
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
Go ahead and plot it out and you will find that should be more of a straight line, which is what I was saying. Those that can read numbers will know the line is not accurate. :rolleyes:
aaaaaand we are back to SD's point about their market.
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
Go ahead and plot it out and you will find that should be more of a straight line, which is what I was saying. Those that can read numbers will know the line is not accurate. :rolleyes:
aaaaaand we are back to SD's point about their market.
SD and the minions didn't understand my comment, yet said I was too dumb to undersand the graph . :flush:
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
Go ahead and plot it out and you will find that should be more of a straight line, which is what I was saying. Those that can read numbers will know the line is not accurate. :rolleyes:
aaaaaand we are back to SD's point about their market.
SD and the minions didn't understand my comment, yet said I was too dumb to undersand the graph . :flush:
Your comment is irrelevant to the fact that Fox is distorting their data/information.
-
If you're going to be picky about it, though, the plot would not be a line perpindicular to the y axis. For that, the values for y would be the same, such as 9.0, 9.0, ... , 9.0. But I don't see how this plot favors one side or the other any more than an accurate plot would. Seems like fair and balanced sloppiness.
-
i'm saying it should be an actual y axis. though their market (you) probably doesn't know what a y axis is or why this is hilarious.
Go ahead and plot it out and you will find that should be more of a straight line, which is what I was saying. Those that can read numbers will know the line is not accurate. :rolleyes:
aaaaaand we are back to SD's point about their market.
SD and the minions didn't understand my comment, yet said I was too dumb to undersand the graph . :flush:
Your comment is irrelevant to the fact that Fox is distorting their data/information.
It's hilarious you guys are worried about fox's accuracy plotting points when the real problem is the actual data. The unemployment numbers are complete :bs:
-
I think Hotdogs are wonderful!
Sent from my TerreStar Genus using TapaTalk
-
Why aren't you guys talking about my comment about hotdogs!!! :curse:
Sent from my TerreStar Genus using TapaTalk
-
I wish I understood stuff better.
Sent from my '82 AMC Pacer using TapaTalk
-
If you're going to be picky about it, though, the plot would not be a line perpindicular to the y axis. For that, the values for y would be the same, such as 9.0, 9.0, ... , 9.0. But I don't see how this plot favors one side or the other any more than an accurate plot would. Seems like fair and balanced sloppiness.
The real problem is the final point, 8.6%. This should be the lowest point on the graph, but it would make Obama look good if the graph had a downward trend, so they just put it on a point horizontal from the previous point, 9.0%.
-
If you're going to be picky about it, though, the plot would not be a line perpindicular to the y axis. For that, the values for y would be the same, such as 9.0, 9.0, ... , 9.0. But I don't see how this plot favors one side or the other any more than an accurate plot would. Seems like fair and balanced sloppiness.
The real problem is the final point, 8.6%. This should be the lowest point on the graph, but it would make Obama look good if the graph had a downward trend, so they just put it on a point horizontal from the previous point, 9.0%.
Yeah, dropping to a new low of 8.6, as we head into the holidays, would make Obama look great! The graph is a funny mistake, but the real numbers are just sad.
-
If you're going to be picky about it, though, the plot would not be a line perpindicular to the y axis. For that, the values for y would be the same, such as 9.0, 9.0, ... , 9.0. But I don't see how this plot favors one side or the other any more than an accurate plot would. Seems like fair and balanced sloppiness.
The real problem is the final point, 8.6%. This should be the lowest point on the graph, but it would make Obama look good if the graph had a downward trend, so they just put it on a point horizontal from the previous point, 9.0%.
Yeah, dropping to a new low of 8.6, as we head into the holidays, would make Obama look great! The graph is a funny mistake, but the real numbers are just sad.
Look at where 8.6 would fall on that Y-axis and notice how sharp that decline should be.
-
If you're going to be picky about it, though, the plot would not be a line perpindicular to the y axis. For that, the values for y would be the same, such as 9.0, 9.0, ... , 9.0. But I don't see how this plot favors one side or the other any more than an accurate plot would. Seems like fair and balanced sloppiness.
The real problem is the final point, 8.6%. This should be the lowest point on the graph, but it would make Obama look good if the graph had a downward trend, so they just put it on a point horizontal from the previous point, 9.0%.
Yeah, dropping to a new low of 8.6, as we head into the holidays, would make Obama look great! The graph is a funny mistake, but the real numbers are just sad.
Look at where 8.6 would fall on that Y-axis and notice how sharp that decline should be.
:lol:
-
It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.
But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" :thumbsup:
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
-
It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.
But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" :thumbsup:
No, what's funny is stating that 8.6 is a sharp decline. :lol:
But, I suppose come January when it goes back up to 9.2, that won't be a sharp increase.
-
It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.
But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" :thumbsup:
:facepalm: You really think this was intentional? "Yeah, let's deliberately distort a graph. Nobody will ever call us on it. It's not like there are any liberal outfits that monitor us 24 hours a day, looking for any slipups, are there?"
-
It has been said that the fact that Time wouldn't mentio the TEA party due to an agenda.
But this graph is simply a "funny mistake" :thumbsup:
No, what's funny is stating that 8.6 is a sharp decline. :lol:
But, I suppose come January when it goes back up to 9.2, that won't be a sharp increase.
At the scale of the graph that Fox News presented, it absolutely would be a sharp increase.
-
i guess i'm even more confused about why people on either side would think that the placement of the last point shows something significant than i am about why people on either side would think that there is a significant relationship between the president and unemployment rates. if you're looking at trends, a single point is meaningless.
-
What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.
-
Obama bowled a 37 :lol:
That's all I got for the politics board :clac:
-
What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.
yeah, this is a first. tv people always nail this stuff. i mean, have you seen what the weatherman can do?
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
not obsessed.
don't watch it.
don't really care.
i disagree that there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, MSNBC obviously but most others seem pretty impartial
not sure what Fox has gotten "right" that has made people crazy?
-
MSNBC doesn't tout itself as being "fair and balanced"? does it?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< doesn't know, doesn't watch.
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
-
I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.
-
I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.
:facepalm:
What I don't understand is why make a big deal about it. The unbiased Excel generated graph is not any less impressive than the erroneous Fox graph. The change in unemployment is negligible compared to one year ago, as everyone is aware.
-
I'm still not 100% sure john dougie understands the first graph.
:facepalm:
What I don't understand is why make a big deal about it. The unbiased Excel generated graph is not any less impressive than the erroneous Fox graph. The change in unemployment is negligible compared to one year ago, as everyone is aware.
confirmed
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. :eek:
http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html (http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html)
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. :eek:
http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html (http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html)
You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?
-
john doug, I don't want to pile on but, woof
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. :eek:
http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html (http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html)
You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. :eek:
http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html (http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html)
You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
Why do you want to count people who aren't looking for work? There is nothing negative about somebody deciding to stay at home with the kids instead of going out and pursuing a career. Some people do not need or want a job.
-
What's amazing is that some don't understand this graphic had to be manually manipulated to create this "mistake". Designers don't freehand graphs for this very reason.
yeah, this is a first. tv people always nail this stuff. i mean, have you seen what the weatherman can do?
:facepalm:
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
not obsessed.
don't watch it.
don't really care.
i disagree that there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, MSNBC obviously but most others seem pretty impartial
not sure what Fox has gotten "right" that has made people crazy?
lol
-
Here is the wonderful hotdog. Please respond. :shy:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhVtP3.png%5D&hash=10f984c8400d54f1b52dd442c4ce4dbad5ab26df)
oh man. do one from 0 to 100 now and let's see what it looks like. :excited:
That really isn't necessary, rick daris, its plenty unimpressive at 12. But, If I were to make a graph of the actual US unemployment rate, it would need to go above 25. :eek:
http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html (http://news.yahoo.com/actual-unemployment-rate-soars-above-25-percent-200400654.html)
You realize that the "actual" unemployment rate counts stay-at-home moms as unemployed, right?
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
Why do you want to count people who aren't looking for work? There is nothing negative about somebody deciding to stay at home with the kids instead of going out and pursuing a career. Some people do not need or want a job.
It would keep politicians from manipulating the true numbers.
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
:facepalm: If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not "or". This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
:facepalm: If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not "or". This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"
Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.
I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
:facepalm: If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not "or". This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"
Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.
I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.
So you admit it is a shitty way to arrive at an accurate unemployment percentage. :flush:
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
:facepalm: If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not "or". This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"
Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.
I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.
So you admit it is a shitty way to arrive at an accurate unemployment percentage. :flush:
It's about as accurate as you can get in a country of 300 million-plus people. Even if it's wildly inaccurate, as you suggest, it helps to know how the number is actually calculated, which you don't. But congrats on knowing nothing about the subject you're talking about and verifying your diminished mental capacity. You're quite good at that.
-
Yes, it is obvious from the article. The actual rate includes anyone able to work that is over 18 and under 65, and that percentage is over 25%. The problem with the government numbers are many, including that as people run out of unemployment benefits, they simply drop them from the work force like they no longer exist. Right now, for many people, their three years are coming to an end at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 per month, which will improve the government unemployment rate numbers, but not the actual.
JFC you are dumb. Exhausting unemployment benefits doesn't mean you're not counted as unemployed.
Perhaps this will help:
Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)
:facepalm: If you aren't collecting benefits, they don't know you are looking for a job. Notice its "and" , not "or". This is an example how the government manipulates the numbers. "Golly gee, we haven't heard from Joe since his bennies ran out, so he must be working!"
Are you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)? At 8.6 percent with a workforce of approximately 140 million, there's 12 million people unemployed according to the BLS. There's only 6.7 million people collecting unemployment benefits right now. How the eff did the BLS find those other 5 million people. That or you believe that only 80 million people are in the workforce.
I mean any responsible pollster is going to know that you can only ask people receiving unemployment benefits to answer a survey. Same for political polling. They really only ask registered voters receiving unemployment benefits to participate in those.
So you admit it is a shitty way to arrive at an accurate unemployment percentage. :flush:
It's about as accurate as you can get in a country of 300 million-plus people. Even if it's wildly inaccurate, as you suggest, it helps to know how the number is actually calculated, which you don't. But congrats on knowing nothing about the subject you're talking about and verifying your diminished mental capacity. You're quite good at that.
Any time you use a convoluted formula filled with assumptions over verifiable numbers, like total jobs and total number in the work force, you are going to find bias and political expediency.
-
Please provide the exact number of jobs in the U.S. right now.
-
Please provide the exact number of jobs in the U.S. right now.
If my calculations are correct, (they usually are), it is about 74.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh193%2Fstevedaveksu%2FUntitled-15.png&hash=8e6f524cae16ab2ee77c7869fb6fca20c8611830)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh193%2Fstevedaveksu%2FUntitled-15.png&hash=8e6f524cae16ab2ee77c7869fb6fca20c8611830)
:lol:
-
The help phone is lighting up at sugar dicks house, but no one is home.
-
Please provide the exact number of jobs in the U.S. right now.
I think the IRS has that data for you.
-
Please provide the exact number of jobs in the U.S. right now.
I think the IRS has that data for you.
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e201675ece407d970b-550wi&hash=2912628b26c0e361784f514fa18a7337df3814e6)
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
It's only 6.7% in Kansas. :lynchmob:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailydish.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451c45669e201675ece407d970b-550wi&hash=2912628b26c0e361784f514fa18a7337df3814e6)
This is great.
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
It's only 6.7% in Kansas. :lynchmob:
4.2% in Nebraska :gocho:
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
It's only 6.7% in Kansas. :lynchmob:
4.2% in Nebraska :gocho:
Oklahoma at 6.1%. Californians rejoice!
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
It's only 6.7% in Kansas. :lynchmob:
4.2% in Nebraska :gocho:
Oklahoma at 6.1%. Californians rejoice!
Obama's model of success only 11.7% :emawkid:
-
In my part of the world an 8.6% unemployment rate would be a massive improvement.
It's only 6.7% in Kansas. :lynchmob:
4.2% in Nebraska :gocho:
Oklahoma at 6.1%. Californians rejoice!
Obama's model of success only 11.7% :emawkid:
Yes, there won't be any stupid Okies traveling to California looking for work, so there's that.
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
not obsessed.
don't watch it.
don't really care.
i disagree that there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, MSNBC obviously but most others seem pretty impartial
not sure what Fox has gotten "right" that has made people crazy?
lol
illuminating :bang:
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
This. Scouring a 24 hour "news" channel in search of typographical errors is really quite pathetic. They actually pay people to do this full time; Media Matters a leftist well funded "501(c)(3)".
These are the same people that get their news from pseudo-journalist and untalented ass clown Jon Stewart. The irony is quite wonderful.
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
This. Scouring a 24 hour "news" channel in search of typographical errors is really quite pathetic. They actually pay people to do this full time; Media Matters a leftist well funded "501(c)(3)".
These are the same people that get their news from pseudo-journalist and untalented ass clown Jon Stewart. The irony is quite wonderful.
pfffft
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
This. Scouring a 24 hour "news" channel in search of typographical errors is really quite pathetic. They actually pay people to do this full time; Media Matters a leftist well funded "501(c)(3)".
These are the same people that get their news from pseudo-journalist and untalented ass clown Jon Stewart. The irony is quite wonderful.
pfffft
tard outed
-
pffffft
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
-
Who cares? I have a job.
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
:flush: still waiting to hear what they are so "right" about that everyone else is missing.
links would help lol will not
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
:flush: still waiting to hear what they are so "right" about that everyone else is missing.
links would help lol will not
This was fun
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
:flush: still waiting to hear what they are so "right" about that everyone else is missing.
links would help lol will not
:facepalm: :lol:
-
:facepalm: :lol: :facepalm: :bang: :bang: :bang:
you are right THIS IS FUN :love:
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
:flush: still waiting to hear what they are so "right" about that everyone else is missing.
links would help lol will not
This was fun
I don't think they are ever going to get it.
-
I find the left's Fox news obsession to be fascinating. I mean, there are so many obvious left pointing news organizations, but Fox being right just makes them crazy. Very odd.
right about what? being bigots who are "praying" that poor people go away?
lol
:flush: still waiting to hear what they are so "right" about that everyone else is missing.
links would help lol will not
This was fun
I don't think they are ever going to get it.
You might be RIGHT ?!?!? :thumbsup: