More Economic Bias

[aquapub]

MRC-When the Labor Department on Friday announced a strong gain of 166,000 jobs during October, double expectations, ABC and CBS gave it a few seconds while NBC ignored the good news altogether.

Yet when any negative news surfaces, as it did yesterday, the networks connect it with every other piece of bad news they can and make it look like the sky is falling.

-With "DANGER SIGNS" on screen, Williams announced: "Good evening. The following sounds pretty awful -- and we take no pleasure in reporting it -- but today Wall Street fell, the U.S. dollar fell, GM is in bad shape and the housing market continues to be in big trouble."

-CBS displayed "MARKET TURMOIL" on screen as Katie Couric opened with how "investors were carrying a world of worries on their shoulders today" because of "the falling dollar, record high oil prices, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, and a possible economic slowdown. And they responded by dumping stocks. That sent the Dow plummeting more than 300 points for the second time in a week."

-ABC: "Tonight, oil gushes and Wall Street plunges...Wall Street today took a nose dive sharp enough to make investors' ears pop."

Like night and day. This is the left's cue for ad hominems and red herrings.

 

[alphieb]

MRC-When the Labor Department on Friday announced a strong gain of 166,000 jobs during October, double expectations, ABC and CBS gave it a few seconds while NBC ignored the good news altogether.

Yet when any negative news surfaces, as it did yesterday, the networks connect it with every other piece of bad news they can and make it look like the sky is falling.

-With "DANGER SIGNS" on screen, Williams announced: "Good evening. The following sounds pretty awful -- and we take no pleasure in reporting it -- but today Wall Street fell, the U.S. dollar fell, GM is in bad shape and the housing market continues to be in big trouble."

-CBS displayed "MARKET TURMOIL" on screen as Katie Couric opened with how "investors were carrying a world of worries on their shoulders today" because of "the falling dollar, record high oil prices, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, and a possible economic slowdown. And they responded by dumping stocks. That sent the Dow plummeting more than 300 points for the second time in a week."

-ABC: "Tonight, oil gushes and Wall Street plunges...Wall Street today took a nose dive sharp enough to make investors' ears pop."

Like night and day. This is the left's cue for ad hominems and red herrings.

That is what the thundering herd does. The economy is partly psychological.

 

[Iriemon]

MRC-When the Labor Department on Friday announced a strong gain of 166,000 jobs during October, double expectations, ABC and CBS gave it a few seconds while NBC ignored the good news altogether.

Yet when any negative news surfaces, as it did yesterday, the networks connect it with every other piece of bad news they can and make it look like the sky is falling.

-With "DANGER SIGNS" on screen, Williams announced: "Good evening. The following sounds pretty awful -- and we take no pleasure in reporting it -- but today Wall Street fell, the U.S. dollar fell, GM is in bad shape and the housing market continues to be in big trouble."

-CBS displayed "MARKET TURMOIL" on screen as Katie Couric opened with how "investors were carrying a world of worries on their shoulders today" because of "the falling dollar, record high oil prices, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, and a possible economic slowdown. And they responded by dumping stocks. That sent the Dow plummeting more than 300 points for the second time in a week."

-ABC: "Tonight, oil gushes and Wall Street plunges...Wall Street today took a nose dive sharp enough to make investors' ears pop."

Like night and day. This is the left's cue for ad hominems and red herrings.

What is so impressive about 166,000 jobs being created? Big deal.

During the Clinton administration, job creation averaged 229,000 per month.

What ad hominens? Other than your daily smear of liberals and Democrats, I mean.

What red herrings?

 

[jallman]

What is so impressive about 166,000 jobs being created? Big deal.

During the Clinton administration, job creation averaged 229,000 per month.

What ad hominens? Other than your daily smear of liberals and Democrats, I mean.

What red herrings?

I've come to the conclusion that unless pubby hears the specific news he wants to hear every day, he defaults to the liberal/democrat media bias conspiracy theory tripe. He is a one trick pony.

And that trick isn't even impressive.

 

[aquapub]

That is what the thundering herd does. The economy is partly psychological.

Too vague........?

What is so impressive about 166,000 jobs being created? Big deal.

During the Clinton administration, job creation averaged 229,000 per month.

What ad hominens? Other than your daily smear of liberals and Democrats, I mean.

What red herrings?

1) Source for the Clinton statistic?

2) This isn't about whether Democrats or Republicans are better for the economy. This repeatedly debunked fallacy of yours, known as "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" (two things happened at once, therefore one must have caused the other) has no relevance here.

3) Red herring: you trying to change the subject to the 1990s prosperity from the tech boom that Clinton took credit for.

4) Yes, I criticize Democrats regularly here. It would defy common sense not to.

5) I'm genuinely shocked no liberals have yet produced the ad hominem though. It shouldn't be long before one of the three trademark liberal ad hominems surface against me for pointing out media bias:

-"You're stupid."

-"You're mean."

-"You're a homo." (That one's a bit of an oldy, but Southern Democrat used it just the other day)

6) I took Jallman off ignore long enough to see that he produced the ad hominem. There you go. :lol:

 

[Iriemon]

I've come to the conclusion that unless pubby hears the specific news he wants to hear every day, he defaults to the liberal/democrat media bias conspiracy theory tripe. He is a one trick pony.

And that trick isn't even impressive.

You are indeed a case study of cautious deliberation if you are just arriving at that conclusion now.

 

[aquapub]

You are indeed a case study of cautious deliberation if you are just arriving at that conclusion now.

And another ad hominem. Thanks for further demonstrating.

 

[winston53660]

And another ad hominem. Thanks for further demonstrating.

And "Economic Bias" isn't a ad hom?

 

[jallman]

You are indeed a case study of cautious deliberation if you are just arriving at that conclusion now.

I tried reasoning with him once over Jessica's and Megan's law. All I got was a bunch of caustic rhetoric, no real designation of points to his argument, and then he cried foul and put me on ignore when I refused to capitulate to his idiotic assertions.

Since then, I have watched and seen nothing but the same old tired BS conspiracy theories as he gets shot down in thread after thread.

Strip the caustic rhetoric, the borderline ad homs, and the absurdly affected "indignation" and you have empty posts from him. No meat, not even any potatoes. Just an empty diversion when there is nothing else to read.

 

[Iriemon]

1) Source for the Clinton statistic?

Monthly job creation, per Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


1993 307 237 -46 307 273 164 300 159 240 279 263 302
1994 270 192 468 357 339 310 359 303 354 206 425 270
1995 321 211 220 163 -9 227 71 278 239 149 144 140
1996 -18 435 255 165 329 271 228 203 218 238 292 177
1997 229 294 317 291 262 246 276 -7 506 339 307 298
1998 268 185 148 278 401 205 121 355 221 192 285 344
1999 113 396 124 382 214 257 295 193 187 422 295 294
2000 245 120 476 285 220 -43 176 -11 118 -12 216 158

It actually totals 23 million jobs created, which would average about 240,000 new jobs each month.

2) This isn't about whether Democrats or Republicans are better for the economy. This repeatedly debunked fallacy of yours, known as "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" (two things happened at once, therefore one must have caused the other) has no relevance here.

Your argument is irrelevant. I didn't post Clinton's average to argue that his policies were responsible for the greatest period of job growth in history, though I could certainly understand why you would think that. I posted it to respond to your crying that the news didn't report the 166,000 jobs creation.

The reason is because it's no big deal, no big accomplishment. Ho hum. Why should they report it? It's not newsworthy.

3) Red herring: you trying to change the subject to the 1990s prosperity from the tech boom that Clinton took credit for.

It's completely relevant to show why your whining about lack of press coverage for the mediocre job creation is baseless.

4) Yes, I criticize Democrats regularly here. It would defy common sense not to.

LOL - and you're the one always complaining about how biased Dems are.

5) I'm genuinely shocked no liberals have yet produced the ad hominem though. It shouldn't be long before one of the three trademark liberal ad hominems surface against me for pointing out media bias:

-"You're stupid."

-"You're mean."

-"You're a homo." (That one's a bit of an oldy, but Southern Democrat used it just the other day)

Yes, your posts are criticized regularly here. It would defy common sense not to.

 

[Stinger]

I tried reasoning with him once over Jessica's and Megan's law. All I got was a bunch of caustic rhetoric, no real designation of points to his argument, and then he cried foul and put me on ignore when I refused to capitulate to his idiotic assertions.

Since then, I have watched and seen nothing but the same old tired BS conspiracy theories as he gets shot down in thread after thread.

Strip the caustic rhetoric, the borderline ad homs, and the absurdly affected "indignation" and you have empty posts from him. No meat, not even any potatoes. Just an empty diversion when there is nothing else to read.

Why not try to debate the topic, endless rants certainly don't refute what he posted.

 

[Donc]

MRC-When the Labor Department on Friday announced a strong gain of 166,000 jobs during October, double expectations, ABC and CBS gave it a few seconds while NBC ignored the good news altogether.

Yet when any negative news surfaces, as it did yesterday, the networks connect it with every other piece of bad news they can and make it look like the sky is falling.

-With "DANGER SIGNS" on screen, Williams announced: "Good evening. The following sounds pretty awful -- and we take no pleasure in reporting it -- but today Wall Street fell, the U.S. dollar fell, GM is in bad shape and the housing market continues to be in big trouble."

-CBS displayed "MARKET TURMOIL" on screen as Katie Couric opened with how "investors were carrying a world of worries on their shoulders today" because of "the falling dollar, record high oil prices, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, and a possible economic slowdown. And they responded by dumping stocks. That sent the Dow plummeting more than 300 points for the second time in a week."

-ABC: "Tonight, oil gushes and Wall Street plunges...Wall Street today took a nose dive sharp enough to make investors' ears pop."

Like night and day. This is the left's cue for ad hominems and red herrings.

Maybe this report has added a bit doom and gloom to some of the reporting.

Dollar Slumps to Record on China's Plans to Diversify Reserves

By Agnes Lovasz and Stanley White
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg)

The dollar fell the most since September against the currencies of its six biggest trading partners after Chinese officials signaled plans to diversify the nation's $1.43 trillion of foreign exchange reserves.

The dollar fell against all 16 of the most-active currencies, declining to the weakest versus the Canadian dollar since the end of a fixed exchange rate in 1950, a 26-year low against the pound and a 23-year low versus the Australian dollar.

The New York Board of Trade's dollar index dropped to 75.21 today, the lowest since the gauge started in March 1973.
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

 

[aquapub]

And "Economic Bias" isn't a ad hom?

Look it up. To be an argumentum ad hominem, the person has to veer off course to personally smear the other debator. No. Pointing out a double standard in coverage is in no way an ad hominem. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

It actually totals 23 million jobs created, which would average about 240,000 new jobs each month.

:lol:

I knew there was a reason I was suspicious...well, other than the fact that you're using the same repeatedly corrected fallacy again called com hoc, ergo propter hoc (if Bill Clinton was in office while something happened good with the economy, then Bill Clinton must have caused the change). Still waiting for you to provide an iota of proof that anything he did could have logically caused any of the prosperity (which any economist will tell you was the result of the tech boom, not the staggering Clinton tax hikes).

The far more important feature you're ignoring from your DOL statistics is the part where it confirms that we started losing jobs in June of 2000, well before Bush was even elected, not to mention before any of his policies could have logically caused the decline.

Clinton left us with an economy in decline. Thank you for confirming the Clinton Recession. :lol:

Your argument is irrelevant. I didn't post Clinton's average to argue that his policies were responsible for the greatest period of job growth in history, though I could certainly understand why you would think that. I posted it to respond to your crying that the news didn't report the 166,000 jobs creation.

The reason is because it's no big deal, no big accomplishment. Ho hum. Why should they report it? It's not newsworthy.

Unless job creation tops the all time record, no job creation is worth reporting? The problem with that willful blindness is that far smaller bad news is apparently worth reporting...incessantly. You can't have it both ways. Either record-breaking economic news is the only news worth reporting or it isn't.

LOL - and you're the one always complaining about how biased Dems are.

I complain that Democrats are convinced of their own arguments? That's news to me. What I complain about is Democrats being constitutionally illiterate hysterics and conspiracy theorists wrecking our economy and undermining national defense at every turn.

Yes, your posts are criticized regularly here. It would defy common sense not to.

My threads criticizing liberals for their voting records is not ad hominem. Liberals responding to those criticisms with trademark liberal counterpoints like "you're stupid," "you're mean," and "you're a homo" IS ad hominem.

Nice try.

 

[aquapub]

Maybe this report has added a bit doom and gloom to some of the reporting.

Dollar Slumps to Record on China's Plans to Diversify Reserves

By Agnes Lovasz and Stanley White
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg)

The dollar fell the most since September against the currencies of its six biggest trading partners after Chinese officials signaled plans to diversify the nation's $1.43 trillion of foreign exchange reserves.

The dollar fell against all 16 of the most-active currencies, declining to the weakest versus the Canadian dollar since the end of a fixed exchange rate in 1950, a 26-year low against the pound and a 23-year low versus the Australian dollar.

The New York Board of Trade's dollar index dropped to 75.21 today, the lowest since the gauge started in March 1973.
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

But not mentioning at all that job creation exceeded expectations by more than double? Come on, you've got to acknowledge the obvious here. Do you remember the media being so unwilling to report any and all good economic news under Clinton?

 

[Thorgasm]

I knew there was a reason I was suspicious...well, other than the fact that you're using the same repeatedly corrected fallacy again called com hoc, ergo propter hoc (if Bill Clinton was in office while something happened good with the economy, then Bill Clinton must have caused the change). Still waiting for you to provide an iota of proof that anything he did could have logically caused any of the prosperity (which any economist will tell you was the result of the tech boom, not the staggering Clinton tax hikes).

The far more important feature you're ignoring from your DOL statistics is the part where it confirms that we started losing jobs in June of 2000, well before Bush was even elected, not to mention before any of his policies could have logically caused the decline.

Clinton left us with an economy in decline. Thank you for confirming the Clinton Recession. :lol:

So how come the recession isn't "com hoc, ergo propter hoc"?

What would be the word for saying Clinton gets no credit for the good, but all of the blame for the bad?

 

[Thorgasm]

But not mentioning at all that job creation exceeded expectations by more than double? Come on, you've got to acknowledge the obvious here. Do you remember the media being so unwilling to report any and all good economic news under Clinton?

So experts lowballed the figures. How does that compare to the major fact that our currency is devalued to levels we haven't seen in 30 years?

 

[Stinger]

Unless job creation tops the all time record, no job creation is worth reporting? The problem with that willful blindness is that far smaller bad news is apparently worth reporting...incessantly. You can't have it both ways. Either record-breaking economic news is the only news worth reporting or it isn't.

It is MUCH more difficult to create jobs when everyone is working. It took me 5 months to create the last job I hired an employee for because I couldn't find anyone to take the job. Unemployment is very very low.

And you are correct that it takes a year or more for a Presidents policies to start having significant effect, if at all and they continue over into the next Presidents term.

Many think simpleton views of a chart of data prove their points and you proper notation of com hoc, ergo propter hoc, they are nothing more than simpleton views without the critical understanding of how the economy works and how jobs are created.

 

[Stinger]

So how come the recession isn't "com hoc, ergo propter hoc"?

What would be the word for saying Clinton gets no credit for the good, but all of the blame for the bad?

Who blamed him for the recession? Nothing he particularly did although there has been some postulation the he cherry picked and inflated some economic data towards the end of his term to make the economy look stronger than it really was in order to help Gore win the election and then when that came tumbling down in made matters worse. But on the other hand he did nothing to help the economic boom that did occur during the 90's and in fact opposed the measures that made it possible and fought for higher spending than the congress would let him have, if we had listened to him there would not have been the brief surplus on the books.

 

[jallman]

Why not try to debate the topic, endless rants certainly don't refute what he posted.

Why not try minding your own business and not responding if you don't like what I said.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why not try to debate the topic, endless rants certainly don't refute what he posted.

Why not try minding your own business and not responding if you don't like what I said.

Oh well................

 

[jallman]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why not try to debate the topic, endless rants certainly don't refute what he posted.




Oh well................

Yes, oh well. Are you quite finished now?

 

[Stinger]

Yes, oh well. Are you quite finished now?

Finished what?

 

[jallman]

Finished what?

Needlessly interjecting your opinions about something which you were never asked in the first place.

Now run along and cry foul while you do your shuffle.

 

[Stinger]

Needlessly interjecting your opinions about something which you were never asked in the first place.

Ahhhhh we have to ask your permission first is it?

Now run along and cry foul while you do your shuffle.

Let's see I suggest you debate the subject instead of issuing your invective and I'm the one shuffling..................:rofl you're hilarious.