Comments on: Tim Russert is a Moonbat

by: Kender

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:55:48 +0000

Of course with Clinton, it CAME DOWN to under 5%. With Bush, it’s moved up.

The more I see this comment sitting here the more I wonder at the absolute stupidity of the moron that posted it…..I boggle at the intellect that must have taken a bit of wishful thinking and tossed it up, hoping that nobody would notice that the commenter that first wrote these words is a damnable idiot.

Seriously….did you even do one second worth of research on this before commenting?

by: Uncle Jack

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:28:05 +0000

And, it’s all conversation anyway. If you can’t be one of 95 out of 100 worth hiring, you’re not worth hiring.

by: Uncle Jack

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:25:33 +0000

Hix - WRONG!

You don’t divide a gain in percent by the original percent and then claim it went up by x percent. You’re already stating the number in percentage terms!; So it’s simple addition, the proper way to state it is “unemployment went up by 0.7%” End of story. Damn. You must be educated in a public school, like Russert.

by: Kender

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:22 +0000

Actually dipwad (I refuse to call a bucket of crap by the name of a Great Patriot), unemployment has hovered around 5% for years, and under Bush started out around 5.something percent, so it still went down during Bush’s tenure….

by: Ronald Reagan

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:44:49 +0000

Of course with Clinton, it CAME DOWN to under 5%. With Bush, it’s moved up.

by: Kender

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:45:00 +0000

I remember during clintons reign that the MSM crowed about how low clinton had unemployment…..and it was running above 5 percent…..so between five and six percent is a good figure for a democrat but a bad figure for a republican…..uhhuh.

No wonder most of the people in this country don’t know what’s going on……they are dizzy from the constant spin the MSM puts on the news.

by: Denny Hix

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:13:10 +0000

Russert used the proper terms.

It’s up “seven-tenths of a point” — but unemployment is 17% larger that it was over the difference in time.

by: liv

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:53:47 +0000

Actually, it is legitimate to denote a percentage increase over a specific bracket of time, as in “the unemployment rate increased X%, from 4.2 to 4.9 over the past Y years.” It’s no different than saying earnings were down by 50%, even though unemployment is expressed as a percent itself.

If you take the raw unemployment index (not expressed as a percent) and compare it over time, it should also reflect a near-17% difference.

Rather than telling us merely raw numbers or percents, this notion of comparing rates at differing times is intended to indicate whether there are trends in the data (e.g., from 1997-2001, it might’ve been 12%, or 2%); it tells us not the general direction, but the specific extent.

That said - it’s clear that 17% was used to add an element of hysteria to the numbers. I mean, 4.2 to 4.9 doesn’t sound quite as alarming as does nearly 20%.

And I think that’s what you were trying to say.

by: Uncle Jack

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:21:26 +0000

Kender, sarcasm right? You can’t take the difference between a percent and a percent and say that the underlying number changed by x percent. It’s not only illogical, it’s a lie.

Unemployment rose 0.7% in five years to 4.9%. And, if someone can’t be one of the 95 out of a hundred to find employment, obviously unemployable.

by: The Smoke Eater

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:20:54 +0000

But didn’t you know, if it is on a “main stream media” news report, you are not allowed to question it. If they tell you that 2+2 equals Bush Lying, that is gospel fact. Much like the “fact” that since Cindy Sheehan’s ADULT son CHOSE to enlist in the U.S. Army, and was (tragicly) killed in combat, that entitles her to call the President a murderer and consort with COMMUNIST DICTATORS, without question. Man, you just gotta love that moonbat logic (if you can call it logic).