Unemployment at 17 year low...

[ChristineM]

Albania exported electricity in trucks? Wow!

That was my reaction .

Imagine the cracking blue glow as you open the rear doors.

 

[Stevicus]

I never tried to hide my tactics, in fact I explained myself in concise detail. I have also been very open about my thoughts. I am not interested in hiding anything and I will state very clearly that it is more than obvious, in rearguards to unemployment and statistics in general, you haven't a clue of what you are talking about and due to this ignorance you are making misleading statements.

Let me know if I can make this any clearer to you.

You're using what would commonly be referred to as the "tactic of ridicule." You think that by making digs at me, it helps bolster your position. It's an old tactic - easily recognized and disposed of.

Your "explanation" was merely just a regurgitation of the official definition of "unemployment" as propagated by the government, which I already knew even before I started posting.

Your entire position is based on your assumption that I don't know what that definition is, but I've told you more than once that I do know what the definition is, yet you keep ignoring that and grasping at straws by playing the "you don't know what you're talking about" card.

You didn't even bother to address my point that this is not about numbers or statistics (or even about unemployment) but about the misuse of language. If you're offering to make this clearer for me, perhaps you can start by explaining why you ignored that point.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You're using what would commonly be referred to as the "tactic of ridicule." You think that by making digs at me, it helps bolster your position. It's an old tactic - easily recognized and disposed of.

Your "explanation" was merely just a regurgitation of the official definition of "unemployment" as propagated by the government, which I already knew even before I started posting.

Your entire position is based on your assumption that I don't know what that definition is, but I've told you more than once that I do know what the definition is, yet you keep ignoring that and grasping at straws by playing the "you don't know what you're talking about" card.

You didn't even bother to address my point that this is not about numbers or statistics (or even about unemployment) but about the misuse of language. If you're offering to make this clearer for me, perhaps you can start by explaining why you ignored that point.

I strongly recommend that you go to your local community college and take same basic math courses and intro statistics courses.

 

[Stevicus]

I strongly recommend that you go to your local community college and take same basic math courses and intro statistics courses.

There you go again. Man, oh, man. You're a real piece of work. Your hubristic derogating is cute, but you don't even have the common courtesy to address what I actually said. You're only going on about what you think I said - or you're just being intentionally dishonest as a part of your tactic.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There you go again. Man, oh, man. You're a real piece of work. Your hubristic derogating is cute, but you don't even have the common courtesy to address what I actually said. You're only going on about you think I said - or you're just being intentionally dishonest as a part of your tactic.

Yes, we both have great big egos, except in my case I have the education you lack.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, we both have great big egos, except in my case I have the education you lack.

Brainwashing, you mean. That's why you're stuck regurgitating, because you obviously don't understand your "education" well enough to be able to talk about it intelligently or adequately address anything that goes against your dogma. This is the sure sign of a mindless conformist without the intellectual or mental flexibility to see beyond convention and tradition.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Brainwashing, you mean.

Still a substantial amount more effort and time invested into understanding data analysis than your slap stick nonsense. Not to mention more math.

 

[Stevicus]

Still a substantial amount more effort and time invested into understanding data analysis than your slap stick nonsense. Not to mention more math.

That's your story. I see no indication that you understand it at the level you claim, because you can't even explain it in your own words or respond to direct questions or challenges without resorting to "you don't know what you're talking about."

Even if that was the case, if I said something as ridiculous as "2+2=5," any competent individual would be able to explain why that is wrong. The fact that you're unable to do that says more about you than it does about me.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's your story. I see no indication that you understand it at the level you claim, because you can't even explain it in your own words or respond to direct questions or challenges without resorting to "you don't know what you're talking about."

Even if that was the case, if I said something as ridiculous as "2+2=5," any competent individual would be able to explain why that is wrong. The fact that you're unable to do that says more about you than it does about me.

I just don't think I can shout loud enough that you can hear me over that ego of yours.

 

[Stevicus]

I just don't think I can shout loud enough that you can hear me over that ego of yours.

My ego? Physician, heal thyself. No need to shout either. It would have been far easier if you had simply addressed the points I made rather than taking stuff out of context and using it to make the topic about me. That's where you've gone wrong in this thread.

Bottom line here: It's wrong to lie. It's even more wrong when one tries to flash their credentials and resort to manipulative deceptions and belittlement as a vehicle to propagate a government lie.

Still think it's about math and statistics? Are you ready to discuss the use of language now, or would you just prefer to withdraw from the discussion?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

My ego? Physician, heal thyself. No need to shout either. It would have been far easier if you had simply addressed the points I made rather than taking stuff out of context and using it to make the topic about me. That's where you've gone wrong in this thread.

Bottom line here: It's wrong to lie. It's even more wrong when one tries to flash their credentials and resort to manipulative deceptions and belittlement as a vehicle to propagate a government lie.

Still think it's about math and statistics? Are you ready to discuss the use of language now, or would you just prefer to withdraw from the discussion?

"It's wrong to lie. "

You really shouldn't call people lairs without some proof.

Spoiler: Proof

"Are you ready to discuss the use of language "

My language was plain simple and correct.

 

[Stevicus]

"It's wrong to lie. "

You really shouldn't call people lairs without some proof.

Spoiler: Proof

That wasn't what I was referring to. I actually believe you when you say you're a stats major, so this was unnecessary.

"Are you ready to discuss the use of language "

My language was plain simple and correct.

You continued to ignore the points I made regarding that, such as in post 69:

No, we're talking about parameters and creative definitions of words. That's more in the realm of language and linguistics, not numbers. According to the "traditional" methods of measuring "unemployment," the implication is that "unemployment" means something else than what the term literally implies. That involves the (mis)use of language, not numbers. Get that straight first, before telling people they don't know what they're talking about.

This went completely ignored by you, not once but several times. All you kept doing was repeating yourself, without addressing anything.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay. Someone tell me how this is a bad thing and how Trump had absolutely nothing to do with it....I'm waiting...

Effect always follows cause in time, and large, complex, national (and trans-national) effects take a considerable amount of time.

Economies aren't something "governments do." Economies are something that humans do, and government can have only limited effect, almost always taking more time than Trump has had so far. And this is most especially true in this case, since the plain fact of the matter (as @Revoltingest pointed out) is that Trump hasn't yet produced any real policies, nor legislation that impacts the economy, nor much of anything else.

Ergo, it has little to nothing to do with him.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That wasn't what I was referring to. I actually believe you when you say you're a stats major, so this was unnecessary.



You continued to ignore the points I made regarding that, such as in post 69:



This went completely ignored by you, not once but several times. All you kept doing was repeating yourself, without addressing anything.

What I said the first time was absolutely correct, if it is correct then there is no need to keep repeating myself. At any rate I got the feel that no matter what I said or do say your reaction would be about the same. I don't think you are cable of a rational discussion on this topic. If there was this "government lie" then why is the raw data openly available to the public? If you don't like their analysis, I can recommend a few books to get you on your way to doing your own personal analysis. They made the data openly available because they are not trying to hide it.

I know I am right, I have no doubt about that, but I just think you are a person who cannot be reasoned with on this topic.

 

[Milton Platt]

Boy, did I mess up! I forgot to add the source material. Let's try again, shall we?

Last Month, the U.S. Added 261,000 Jobs; Here’s the Takeaway

Mea Culpa!

Scrolled through the link looking for the part that explains how Trump had something to do with the jobs added. Must have missed it.

I did find this in the article, though:

Many economists, however, argue that the president deserves little credit for the strong job market, which predates his time in office. And the recent run of strong economic data could complicate the Republican argument that a tax cut is needed to promote economic growth.

 

[Stevicus]

What I said the first time was absolutely correct, if it is correct then there is no need to keep repeating myself. At any rate I got the feel that no matter what I said or do say your reaction would be about the same. I don't think you are cable of a rational discussion on this topic. If there was this "government lie" then why is the raw data openly available to the public? If you don't like their analysis, I can recommend a few books to get you on your way to doing your own personal analysis. They made the data openly available because they are not trying to hide it.

I know I am right, I have no doubt about that, but I just think you are a person who cannot be reasoned with on this topic.

This isn't a question about whether you or I are "right." That's the problem that we've been having, since this should really be a neutral discussion between us, discussing shared ideas - yet you seem to want to be automatically belligerent and confrontational. You're the one not being reasonable, nor did you even adequately address the topic.

Of course, you're "right" about the official definition of unemployment. That's not in question here. If you had bothered paying attention and taking the chip off your shoulder, you would have seen that.

And yet, you have the audacity to say that I can't be reasoned with. You're the one who is being unnecessarily aggressive here. You're the one who is unreasonable, from the moment you started off with your throwaway one-liner about Fox News. Ever since then, you kept digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole. You even call yourself a "well known jerk," so it seems you're this way with everyone. This is just a game for you. You're not posting seriously. The fact that you constantly go off topic to make the issue about me, rather than what we're talking about - that's very telling about your character.

I have a feeling if someone said "it's a nice day," you would respond, "You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm a meteorology major. Only I'm qualified to say whether it's a nice day, since I have the expertise to say so."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This isn't a question about whether you or I are "right." That's the problem that we've been having, since this should really be a neutral discussion between us, discussing shared ideas - yet you seem to want to be automatically belligerent and confrontational. You're the one not being reasonable, nor did you even adequately address the topic.

Of course, you're "right" about the official definition of unemployment. That's not in question here. If you had bothered paying attention and taking the chip off your shoulder, you would have seen that.

And yet, you have the audacity to say that I can't be reasoned with. You're the one who is being unnecessarily aggressive here. You're the one who is unreasonable, from the moment you started off with your throwaway one-liner about Fox News. Ever since then, you kept digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole. You even call yourself a "well known jerk," so it seems you're this way with everyone. This is just a game for you. You're not posting seriously. The fact that you constantly go off topic to make the issue about me, rather than what we're talking about - that's very telling about your character.

I have a feeling if someone said "it's a nice day," you would respond, "You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm a meteorology major. Only I'm qualified to say whether it's a nice day, since I have the expertise to say so."

I am glad you can finally realize your error, I know that was hard for you.

 

[Stevicus]

I am glad you can finally realize your error, I know that was hard for you.

So, I take that as your agreement with what you just quoted. I'm glad we've settled this. Have a wonderful Sunday.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So, I take that as your agreement with what you just quoted. I'm glad we've settled this. Have a wonderful Sunday.

Pretending to be ignorant is of course your choice; however, I think you realized your error from the get-go, when I pointed it out, and this is just your painful reaction to being wrong and of course my propensity for trolling.

 

[Stevicus]

of course my propensity for trolling.

Well, at least, you finally admit what I suspected all along. You realize that, by this admission, you're invalidating your entire position in this thread.