Can the White House change Unemployment Numbers?

Dont' have to, you provide the answers buried in your posts. Read before you post.
Digging something out of a post is research. I know exactly what I wrote and what I posted

"........the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser,....."

Got the fox to watch the chicken coop I see.

So, he did say, but when he said it ... it was a "prediction" ... like closing GITMO?

He is slick. Always has an answer for why he didn't accomplish what he promised.

Oh, wait, it was a prediction. I'm sorry.

Give me trillions of dollars to piss off and I predict unemployment will be 5.6%! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are sorry. Don't have much of a grasp of your native language, do you?

So lets sum up here.

First off, my post was correct. Everything you added just confused the issue. Which is what you meant to do.

You attempted to pass on the lie by repeating it again.

You're mad because he predicted unemployment numbers three years from then, using caveats you so diligently dug out, instead of promising the numbers.

You think a prediction is a slippery way to avoid a promise.

You're pouting because he got out from under a lie you and your ilk put on top of him.

Obama has kept 38% of his promises, compromised on 15%, broken 17%, 9% are stalled, 21% are still in the works.

The gop has kept 21% of their promises, compromised on 9%, broken 19% of their promises, 5% stalled, 18% in the works, and 28% not yet rated.

Munchie, why am I not surprised that your answer has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I suppose when you have no valid argument,


you can always demonize the opposition and try to fool people who are foolish enough to believe a hogwash story in the first place.!

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Finally, an honest person, who confirms the Obaminable campaign tactics.

Munchie, why am I not surprised that your answer has nothing to do with what I wrote. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why am I not surprised you don't have a fucking clue? If you're going to put your head on the tee, it's the least that I can do to knock it out of the park.


Your post said,
It is not necessary to have some grand conspiracy. Just have one person not go to work for a week and fail to turn in the numbers. It's not like anyone gets fired in government.


I said,
"I see you missed the information the article had. You know, the part about needing many people to impact the numbers?"
The quote directly addresses your ill-conceived post.


School me teacher man. Let's have a little knowledge transfer.
At this point, I don't have a clue what you could possibly teach. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in so many areas that it must be something like "Animal Husbandry and You" or "Sanskrit and how it applies to everyday life", or some similar shit.


The second part of my post applies to this also although this stupid post of yours isn't the best example of your attitude.


"See what I mean? Every theory you have involves your belief that some group acts as a single entity and takes a negative direction. And that you are supposedly superior to every person in the group."


The last part is just finding your head in the parking lot and kicking it an extra 50 feet.


Do those beliefs come from having all of your students thinking you suck at your job. They're thinking that if you can't learn then how can you teach?



You know, I thought I would get tired of kneeing you in the nuts and pointing out what a douche bag you are.


I was wrong.


That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Finally, an honest person, who confirms the Obaminable campaign tactics. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How typical of a romney supporter. A dishonest person uses someone's quote out of context to prove a nonexistant point.

Of course the "out of context misrepresentation" is the standard M. O. of the type of "conservative" found on this board. Without that tactic, they would be like marshall without a shift-key, a caplock, or any smilies usually is.

Impotent.

How typical of a romney supporter. A dishonest person uses someone's quote out of context to prove a nonexistant point.

Impotent. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually, I am more focused on the outcome of the upcoming election than who is the cleverer wordsmith in the Eccie sandbox .. and irrespective of the disrespectful and obnoxious tactics of Bidenoxious and his supporters, as you, it seems the trend is in the direction of the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan.

If the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan, win it will be a refreshing rebuke to the trashy, obnoxious, disrespectful tactics of your candidates, ala Bidenoxious who Obaminable endorses.

Actually, I am more focused on the outcome of the upcoming election than who is the cleverer wordsmith in the Eccie sandbox .. and irrespective of the disrespectful and obnoxious tactics of Bidenoxious and his supporters, as you, it seems the trend is in the direction of the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan.

If the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan, win it will be a refreshing rebuke to the trashy, obnoxious, disrespectful tactics of your candidates, ala Bidenoxious who Obaminable endorses. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It should be noted that LL also has his personal heros, Duck (before you get shot in the face) Cheney and George W. (MISSION <not> ACCOMPLISHED) Bush in the "respectful gentlemen" category. Where Romney, Ryan, Cheney and Bush are concerned, they are all made from interchangeable parts. No matter how hard you might try, you can't tell that there is a difference between the Far Right Wing-Nut players without a program.

To show you how much credibility LL has, he actually refers to himself as a Democrat! Don't you LL?

To show you how much credibility LL has, he actually refers to himself as a Democrat! Don't you LL? Originally Posted by bigtex

After the performances of your Team the last two debates, and most particularly Bidenoxious's in the VP "Debate," it's tough but unlike you I have not flip-flopped my party affiliation depending on how the political winds blow and I do not select my party based on who is running for the White House.

I know your feelings were hurt when McCain lost in the primaries of 2000, and your ugliness toward Bush over it, but geezzz man, that was over 12 years ago. Get over it and move on.

Credibility? Is that why you hedge on your picks on the boards? So YOU can be "credible"? All Monday morning quarterbacks are "credible" for obvious reasons.

You got money on the race this year. What's the spread on your money?

I asked you that before and I didn't see your answer.

If you did, my apologies. Please repeat. Even money is a toss up!

I suppose when you have no valid argument,


you can always demonize the opposition and try to fool people who are foolish enough to believe a hogwash story in the first place.!

. . . The damn numbers are correct. Over and out!
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

My apologies for taking my prior quote out of context ...

.... there I fixed it.

Quite applicable to your teams' excuses .....

..... for allowing four good men to be murdered. "Enough security"!

And for "promising" that if they get trillions of dollars in "stimulus" money...

.....the unemployment rate will be 5.6% by May 2012.....

.....and when they FAIL .... calling it a "prediction" .. not a promise.

Slippery used car dealers use that tactic all the time to avoid liability ...

....that wasn't a guaranty ... that was "puffing" or a "prediction"?

What's the spread on your money?

I asked you that before and I didn't see your answer. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've told you before, I've got the Obama/Biden ticket straight up!

You make it you win, you miss it you lose!

What's the spread on your money?

I've told you before, I've got the Obama/Biden ticket straight up! You make it you win, you miss it you lose! Originally Posted by bigtex

Even money. Toss up. You won't even handicap your former Party?

Actually, I am more focused on the outcome of the upcoming election than who is the cleverer wordsmith in the Eccie sandbox .. and irrespective of the disrespectful and obnoxious tactics of Bidenoxious and his supporters, as you, it seems the trend is in the direction of the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan.

If the respectful gentlemen, Romney and Ryan, win it will be a refreshing rebuke to the trashy, obnoxious, disrespectful tactics of your candidates, ala Bidenoxious who Obaminable endorses. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It doesn't surprise me in the least you would prefer a respectful lie to the blunt truth. I applaud the restraint shown by Biden to keep from calling ryan a liar to his face. ryan is a farce. The best part of this election is the guarantee that ryan will never be President. After losing this election, he will fade back into obscurity. He is completely unworthy and will be remembered as the prick who tried to fuck the seniors.

Respect is given to someone when it is earned. And a Slim Pickens line from the movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind when I read your posts.

Taggart: God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

Word, bitch.

To answer your question, yes they can and did.

No, regardless of what the FauxBoyz and other TParrotriots say. A bunch of straw-grasping klowns with no personal nor professional acquaintence with a single fact. But, give them credit, they're great at white noise.

It appears that the California official who didn't forward the numbers was an Obama bungler. Ouch! Get WTF to kiss the boo boo on your head Randy.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/ca...ampaign-donor/