Liberal Forum

AmazonTania » 19 Feb 2014 8:49 pm » wrote:
Who looks at the average number of jobs created a year? That makes no sense...

Shintao does. I do. We're comparing results. It is an objective measure.

Your post makes no sense. What difference does it make to our thesis (Reagans suck and Carter rocks), whether we compare averages or compare aggregates?

How is one more or less nonsensical than the other, when the only purpose of the comparison was to compare? Did we USE THE DATA in any way OTHER than to compare? Did we, for example, try to skew the math of one particular year in the set, by saying, "well, carter DID create [whatever that average number was - 2.5 mil or something] that year?"

Did we?

No.

So the comparison was not used for any chicanery. It was not used in the place of a more appropriate number. No one was held to a separate standard. There was no harm, there was no foul.

You seem to do this **** a LOT: This general grumbling while we hand you your ***. It betrays your agenda, which is manifestly NOT a search fro truth but a desire to protect the prevailing narrative.

I am throwing numbers from reputable (to date, unchallenged) sources that blow the prevailing narrative to ****. If you're looking to call **** on my thesis, you need to get busy. What you have managed so far is to reveal that you think there are more than three branches of government, or, as a back up position, you believe that agencies of government exist which are neither executive, legislative or judicial.

That throws mud on your shiny new paint job, young lady. It detracts from your credibility, as this is a POLITICAL board, and even the worst hacks on this board have more civics under their belts than to buy THAT pure ****.

Now, get some steel in that spine. Put up a post with some meat. And keep your elbows off the table. Carriage, young lady - carriage!