If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Presenting the Right's ten craziest election conspiracy theories   (salon.com) divider line 50
    More: Silly, human beings, Stuart Varney, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Huma Abedin, George H. W. Bush, SSA  
•       •       •

3768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 1:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-09 10:24:30 AM
bat. shiat. crazy.
 
2012-10-09 11:21:34 AM
Only ten? It must have been difficult to whittle it down to just ten.
 
2012-10-09 12:03:27 PM
I'm guessing Rush got to choose the photo of him used here, because the last time I saw him he was . . . well, a bit puffier.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:56 PM
I don't believe I've heard of the 'Obama blew up the BP oil rig' one before.

*slow whistle*
 
2012-10-09 01:23:37 PM
The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.
 
2012-10-09 01:36:23 PM
No. 8.

But conservatives led by Rush Limbaugh saw through the scheme and revealed that the massive malfunction was actually a deliberate act of sabotage devised to create a justification for eliminating all off-shore drilling. Limbaugh told his audience that "I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig ... What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?" You can't argue with logic like that, because it's the logic of a mad man who thinks the President would murder twelve workers and foul an environmentally sensitive region in order to achieve a political goal.

I remember the very day he said this bullshiat and never owned it when the evidence came out otherwise. He doesn't give a fark if he's wrong. He shat in the well and his job was done.
 
2012-10-09 01:38:34 PM

slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.


The BLS publishes those numbers. Loosen your tinfoil. It's choking your brain.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:18 PM

WizardofToast: He doesn't give a fark if he's wrong. He shat in the well and his job was done.He'd already cashed that week's paycheck so he was already on to earning the next.


FTFY

The inherent problem with Rush Limbaugh, professional liar, isn't Rush Limbaugh. It's that there's a market for a professional liar in the first place.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:24 PM

vernonFL: Only ten? It must have been difficult to whittle it down to just ten.


My thoughts precisely.
 
2012-10-09 01:41:53 PM

WizardofToast: I remember the very day he said this bullshiat and never owned it when the evidence came out otherwise. He doesn't give a fark if he's wrong. He shat in the well and his job was done.


That could be used to describe Romney's debate performance.
 
2012-10-09 01:42:34 PM
it's all true, and I suspect that I'm in on it and just don't know.
 
2012-10-09 01:45:51 PM

slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.


So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?
 
2012-10-09 01:47:05 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?


Sssssssh! It's all a conspiracy! Those numbers are hidden! You have to click one extra time to get them from the BLS site! It's like a freakin' maze! With minotaurs! Obama minotaurs! OBAMATAURS!
 
2012-10-09 01:47:07 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.

So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?


because 789
 
2012-10-09 01:49:36 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The BLS publishes those numbers. Loosen your tinfoil. It's choking your brain.


Exactly my point. It's the government publishing those numbers, not a political party or President. It's not an accurate representation of those that are unemployed because it doesn't calculate those that have given up looking for work.

Stop being so defensive. I'm not saying this is an Obama issue, this is a government issue.
 
2012-10-09 01:51:41 PM

slayer199: It's not an accurate representation of those that are unemployed because it doesn't calculate those that have given up looking for work.


U4, U5 and U6 all include exactly those people.

Is this some sort of obscure troll or do you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?
 
2012-10-09 01:52:42 PM
Fact-Checkers Are A Liberal Plot

You cannot reason with someone who will look at the truth and convince themselves it is a lie in order to hold on to their predetermined beliefs.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:34 PM

slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.


If you are not looking for work you are no longer in the labor force. This isn't cooking the books. People who claim that this group should be included are saying that stay at home mothers, children, elderly are unemployed and should be part of the rate.......no farking country adds these people to their unemployment rate.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:42 PM

TrollingForColumbine: A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.

So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?

because 789


And what ever happened to U2?
 
2012-10-09 01:57:33 PM

vernonFL: Only ten? It must have been difficult to whittle it down to just ten.


The hard part is picking just five.
 
2012-10-09 01:58:43 PM
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt. ~Rush Limbaughticus, Blood Derpers, Wharpudding 40K
 
2012-10-09 01:59:35 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: U4, U5 and U6 all include exactly those people.

Is this some sort of obscure troll or do you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

First off, stop being so defensive.
Secondly, from the above link:

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. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search

I'm not saying that the 7.8% isn't an improvement or that Obama cooked the books, I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed. You took this to mean I was attacking Obama when in fact I was saying that TFA was looney tunes by pinning it on Obama when it was the government itself cooking the books.
 
2012-10-09 02:00:21 PM

TsarTom: I don't believe I've heard of the 'Obama blew up the BP oil rig' one before.

*slow whistle*


vernonFL: Only ten? It must have been difficult to whittle it down to just ten.


THESE

Also, I'm sure Acorn is disappointed at not having made the list.
 
2012-10-09 02:01:05 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: And what ever happened to U2?


Bono took a Soviet heat-seaking missile up the tailpipe.
 
2012-10-09 02:05:17 PM

slayer199: I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed.


Is my retired grandmother "unemployed"? She hasn't had a job in twenty or so years. Is my a stay-at-home parent "unemployed"? Is a college student that is being supported by their family or by scholarships or grants "unemployed'? They don't count every adult without a job for a reason.
 
2012-10-09 02:06:38 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: TrollingForColumbine: A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.

So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?

because 789

And what ever happened to U2?


They still haven't found what they're looking for.
 
2012-10-09 02:06:40 PM

slayer199: I'm not saying that the 7.8% isn't an improvement or that Obama cooked the books, I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed


U4 and U6.
 
2012-10-09 02:10:26 PM

slayer199: Vegan Meat Popsicle: U4, U5 and U6 all include exactly those people.

Is this some sort of obscure troll or do you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

First off, stop being so defensive.
Secondly, from the above link:

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. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search

I'm not saying that the 7.8% isn't an improvement or that Obama cooked the books, I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed. You took this to mean I was attacking Obama when in fact I was saying that TFA was looney tunes by pinning it on Obama when it was the government itself cooking the books.


Alright. I'm calling it troll. I know you claim to be a libertarian, which means you're dumber than a box of wax nails, but there's no way you're too dumb to do a six character google search.
 
2012-10-09 02:11:54 PM

slayer199: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The BLS publishes those numbers. Loosen your tinfoil. It's choking your brain.

Exactly my point. It's the government publishing those numbers, not a political party or President. It's not an accurate representation of those that are unemployed because it doesn't calculate those that have given up looking for work.

Stop being so defensive. I'm not saying this is an Obama issue, this is a government issue.


So what you're saying, is you don't know how to use google, or read the posts explaining to you how ridiculously wrong you are. You just know.

/Mo-ran.
 
2012-10-09 02:14:07 PM

Ed Grubermann: slayer199: I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed.

Is my retired grandmother "unemployed"? She hasn't had a job in twenty or so years. Is my a stay-at-home parent "unemployed"? Is a college student that is being supported by their family or by scholarships or grants "unemployed'? They don't count every adult without a job for a reason.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

They also don't count people that have given up looking for work. Unemployment figures are understated by BOTH parties. The POINT of my OP was that the GOP was barking up the wrong tree by saying Obama cooked the books when it's BOTH parties (aka the government as a whole and specifically the BLS) that cooks the books in favor of the government.

Jebus, no wonder why we're so farked as a country. I make a post saying this is a GOVERNMENT issue, and people get their panties in a twist. Everyone is so freaked out by the divisive two-party system that you can't rationally criticize the government without people going apeshiat defending the government because it's their guy in charge.
 
2012-10-09 02:16:41 PM

slayer199: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The BLS publishes those numbers. Loosen your tinfoil. It's choking your brain.

Exactly my point. It's the government publishing those numbers, not a political party or President. It's not an accurate representation of those that are unemployed because it doesn't calculate those that have given up looking for work.

Stop being so defensive. I'm not saying this is an Obama issue, this is a government issue.


Are you really that willfully ignorant? The unemployment rate is a measure of people who are looking for jobs but don't have one. That's why retirees and adult students who don't work are not included. It would be pretty stupid to include anyone who isn't looking for employment in that rate, regardless of why they're not looking for a job.
 
2012-10-09 02:19:52 PM

slayer199: Vegan Meat Popsicle: U4, U5 and U6 all include exactly those people.

Is this some sort of obscure troll or do you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

First off, stop being so defensive.
Secondly, from the above link:

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. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search

I'm not saying that the 7.8% isn't an improvement or that Obama cooked the books, I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed. You took this to mean I was attacking Obama when in fact I was saying that TFA was looney tunes by pinning it on Obama when it was the government itself cooking the books.


So...because the government publishes U4, U5, and U6 data along with U3, but everybody only reports U3, the government is cooking the books?
 
2012-10-09 02:23:30 PM
1. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
2. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
3. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
4. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
5. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
6. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
7. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
8. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
9. Election fraud is a credible left-wing threat.
10. Obama will take our guns if reelected, so vote for the guy who signed an assault weapons ban.
 
2012-10-09 02:27:04 PM

Teufelaffe: Are you really that willfully ignorant? The unemployment rate is a measure of people who are looking for jobs but don't have one. That's why retirees and adult students who don't work are not included. It would be pretty stupid to include anyone who isn't looking for employment in that rate, regardless of why they're not looking for a job.


Are you being deliberately naive or just willfully stupid? Yes, the government needs to have some measure of unemployment. Yes, the number is improved (and it's good news). The point of my OP once again is that the GOP is barking up the wrong tree by saying Obama cooked the books because the BLS has ALWAYS understated unemployment (did so under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter...and every administration since it began). The GOP has been pretending that this is new...it isn't.

If you believe 7.8% is an accurate number of people actually unemployed and wanting to work...all the power to you.
 
2012-10-09 02:30:39 PM
Best new troll in a long time.
 
2012-10-09 02:35:54 PM

slayer199: Jebus, no wonder why we're so farked as a country. I make a post saying this is a GOVERNMENT issue, and people get their panties in a twist. Everyone is so freaked out by the divisive two-party system that you can't rationally criticize the government without people going apeshiat defending the government because it's their guy in charge.


Nope, no one is saying "Stop blaming this on Obama!" What everyone is saying is, "You have no idea what you're talking about, you don't understand what the numbers mean or what "not looking for employment" means."

Or do you think that when they say "people no longer looking for employment" they mean hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly decided that the idea of looking for work is just too hard and they're going to stop and just live off of the government dole instead?
 
2012-10-09 02:42:26 PM

ShawnDoc: Best new troll in a long time.


Slayer isn't new; he's popped his head in a few times.

I'll try to explain it very basically for him in case he's not being willfully obtuse:

The government does record the number of discouraged workers, the people who want to work but have given up looking. They even also count people who are only working part time and wish to seek full time work. The number that is most complete (U6) is currently at 14.7%, down from 16.4% a year ago and from a peak of 17.2% back in October 2009. The number everyone is using is U3 which is currently at 7.8%, down from 9.0% a year ago and from a peak of 10% back in October 2009.

These numbers track fairly well, but all signs point to a weak but sustained recovery as far as jobs are concerned.
 
2012-10-09 02:46:51 PM

ShawnDoc: Best new troll in a long time.


Ok...you got me.

What can I say...I was bored waiting for a process to finish and haven't played troll in a long time.

Grungehamster: Slayer isn't new; he's popped his head in a few times.

I'll try to explain it very basically for him in case he's not being willfully obtuse:


I was being willfully obtuse. I just wanted to see how far I could take it before I was called on it.
 
2012-10-09 02:48:35 PM

slayer199: Teufelaffe: Are you really that willfully ignorant? The unemployment rate is a measure of people who are looking for jobs but don't have one. That's why retirees and adult students who don't work are not included. It would be pretty stupid to include anyone who isn't looking for employment in that rate, regardless of why they're not looking for a job.

Are you being deliberately naive or just willfully stupid? Yes, the government needs to have some measure of unemployment. Yes, the number is improved (and it's good news). The point of my OP once again is that the GOP is barking up the wrong tree by saying Obama cooked the books because the BLS has ALWAYS understated unemployment (did so under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter...and every administration since it began). The GOP has been pretending that this is new...it isn't.

If you believe 7.8% is an accurate number of people actually unemployed and wanting to work...all the power to you.


The problem is that you believe that when the media reports the "unemployment rate", they're referring to the "number of people actually unemployed and wanting to work." The "unemployment rate" that gets tossed around in the media is the U3 number, which is a measure of people who are unemployed and looking for work (note the word "looking" not "wanting"). It does not include adults who are unemployed and not looking for work, regardless of why they are not looking for work, because that's not the people it's supposed to be representing. If you want to know the percentage of work-eligible adults in the US that are unemployed, and are not looking for employment, well guess what, that information is easily available to you (Hint: That's the U4, U5, and U6 multiple people in this thread have been mentioning to you.)

You're biatching that the media is reporting a governmentally understated statistic, when the real issue is that you don't understand what the statistic that is being reported is actually representing.
 
2012-10-09 02:54:17 PM

Teufelaffe: The problem is that you believe that when the media reports the "unemployment rate", they're referring to the "number of people actually unemployed and wanting to work." The "unemployment rate" that gets tossed around in the media is the U3 number, which is a measure of people who are unemployed and looking for work (note the word "looking" not "wanting"). It does not include adults who are unemployed and not looking for work, regardless of why they are not looking for work, because that's not the people it's supposed to be representing. If you want to know the percentage of work-eligible adults in the US that are unemployed, and are not looking for employment, well guess what, that information is easily available to you (Hint: That's the U4, U5, and U6 multiple people in this thread have been mentioning to you.)

You're biatching that the media is reporting a governmentally understated statistic, when the real issue is that you don't understand what the statistic that is being reported is actually representing.


Oh, I fully understand the media reporting the issue. If you haven't been following the GOP's stance on the issue, they keep saying that it's understated...when you are in fact correct...the media states the unemployment rate. Shawndoc was correct when he called me for trolling...so the ruse is over...and it was a bit of fun while it lasted.

For the record, yes we are in the middle of a sustained yet weak recovery.

And yes, I still hate both parties and won't vote for Obama or Romney (but the GOP is more looney at the moment).

Thank you and have a nice day.
 
2012-10-09 03:01:21 PM

slayer199: Oh, I fully understand the media reporting the issue. If you haven't been following the GOP's stance on the issue, they keep saying that it's understated...when you are in fact correct...the media states the unemployment rate. Shawndoc was correct when he called me for trolling...so the ruse is over...and it was a bit of fun while it lasted.

For the record, yes we are in the middle of a sustained yet weak recovery.

And yes, I still hate both parties and won't vote for Obama or Romney (but the GOP is more looney at the moment).

Thank you and have a nice day.


Reminds me of Slashdot...

YHBT
HAND
 
2012-10-09 03:01:43 PM
So, looking up, I see slayer is using the mystical U7 measurement, which includes discouraged workers, underemployed workers, babies, house pets and the dead.
 
2012-10-09 03:03:21 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: TrollingForColumbine: A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.

So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?

because 789

And what ever happened to U2?


They still haven't found what they're looking for.
 
2012-10-09 03:08:19 PM

Trapper439: I May Be Crazy But...: TrollingForColumbine: A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: The government, not Obama cooks the books on unemployment numbers...and both parties are guilty. Why? Because it doesn't calculate people that have given up looking for work.

The rest of it is just looney tunes.

So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?

because 789

And what ever happened to U2?

They still haven't found what they're looking for.


That's what I get for not reloading the page. *shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-10-09 03:17:13 PM
3. Politicizing the Stock Market

gas prices should be added to that list too.
 
2012-10-09 03:17:32 PM

TsarTom: I don't believe I've heard of the 'Obama blew up the BP oil rig' one before.

*slow whistle*


You missed it? Oh, it was a hoot. ELF eco-terrorists sabotaged the rig on Obama's orders.

Of course we all now know that in fact the rig was sunk by North Korean suicide commandoes in mini-subs.
 
2012-10-09 03:40:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So, looking up, I see slayer is using the mystical U7 measurement, which includes discouraged workers, underemployed workers, babies, house pets and the dead.


In other words:

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

I love how the GOP wants to bring attention to people who aren't looking for work so Romney can win the election and start demonizing people who aren't looking for work.
 
2012-10-09 04:06:08 PM
slayer199 2012-10-09 02:46:51 PM

ShawnDoc: Best new troll in a long time.

Ok...you got me.

What can I say...I was bored waiting for a process to finish and haven't played troll in a long time.

Grungehamster: Slayer isn't new; he's popped his head in a few times.
I'll try to explain it very basically for him in case he's not being willfully obtuse:


I was being willfully obtuse. I just wanted to see how far I could take it before I was called on it.


Hey d*psh*t, you should never ever admit you're trolling.

The cats hear everything and they record it.

Best part...forever.

(perma-farky'd as: willfully obtuse 7372080)
 
2012-10-09 04:53:47 PM

slayer199: Vegan Meat Popsicle: U4, U5 and U6 all include exactly those people.

Is this some sort of obscure troll or do you truly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

First off, stop being so defensive.
Secondly, from the above link:

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. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search

I'm not saying that the 7.8% isn't an improvement or that Obama cooked the books, I'm saying that it doesn't accurately reflect the number of people out of work...and never has. My issue is how the government actually calculates unemployed. You took this to mean I was attacking Obama when in fact I was saying that TFA was looney tunes by pinning it on Obama when it was the government itself cooking the books.


Take a macroeconomics class. It'll help you understand why it doesn't matter.

This is like complaining that barometric pressure doesn't capture whether it's raining or not, despite it being an awfully good tool towards understanding what the weather is doing. Tell me what the barometer is doing, and I'll tell you if it's getting hotter, colder, more likely to rain, less likely to rain, and so on. Yet the barometer doesn't measure temperature or rain. It's MAGIC!

The same is true with unemployment numbers.

Stop fretting, and don't concern yourself with Ux where x>3
 
2012-10-09 06:07:28 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: A Dark Evil Omen: So why are U4 and U6 tracking U3?

Sssssssh! It's all a conspiracy! Those numbers are hidden! You have to click one extra time to get them from the BLS site! It's like a freakin' maze! With minotaurs! Obama minotaurs! OBAMATAURS!


I'm stealing "Obamataurs"
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report