Anyone who has ever worked for him will tell you what a complete and utter asshole this guy is, but of course since he raised GE's stock price during his tenure he was seen as the messiah.
How many of us would claim the same thing if George Bush were the incumbent right now? Twitter is dangerous.
[quote]How many of us would claim the same thing if George Bush were the incumbent right now? Twitter is dangerous.
How many of us would accuse the GOP of voter fraud if Dems were the one pushing for voter ID? Guess what? We'd be right about the GOP committing fraud.
The difference has been proven over and over again. The reason the GOP accuses Obama of "cooking the books" is because rightwing vermin *would* do it if they were in charge. If they could cook the books *against* Obama, they would.
They want the country to get a terrorist attack under Obama. They love their shit party made up of bigoted idiots more than this country, and I only wish Obama would make them live under Republican policies. No more state money and no more representation in govt. Go shrivel up and die in your "capitalist society" where if your house catches fire, you negotiate a price with the private fire dept while it burns.
[quote]Go shrivel up and die in your "capitalist society" where if your house catches fire, you negotiate a price with the private fire dept while it burns.
If this is how you respond to a simple (and true) observation, I'm glad I don't know you.
The false equivalence troll is back with the same "both sides do it" nonsense.
R8, your definition of "truth" is thinking that screaming about Obama being a "socialist Muslim Kenyan out to destroy America" is on par with accusing Bush of being a war criminal.
You have no credibility when we already have more than enough evidence of the right doing precisely what they claim the left has done.
The Hills Have Eyes clan wants their grandpa back.
They can have him!
Not all equivalences are false. I know if these numbers came out a month before W's re-election I would be suspicious, and I'm sure I'm not alone here.
Who gives a shit what the voices in your head tell you, r13?
There were plenty of other stats issued in the last few weeks--rising auto sales, higher consumer confidence, private payroll numbers, etc. --that were positive for the economy. No one who has been paying attention to the recent economic numbers would have been shocked by the drop in the unemployment rate.
Do you deny that many on the left would suspect Bush and Rove of manipulating the data, or are you just being and idiot and an asshole?
R16, find a reputable liberal commentator from 2004 that claimed Bush doctored the unemployment figure and get back to us.
And the only idiot and asshole is your mother for not getting herself spayed.
... plastic surgery, botox, heavy makeup and the voice of old woman, and a complete right-wing conspiracy loon...
[quote][R16], find a reputable liberal commentator from 2004 that claimed Bush doctored the unemployment figure and get back to us.
Of course, when the statistics seemed to go against the assertions of improvement Obama made and unemployment was not diminishing NOT ONE republican doubted them.
[quote]Do you deny that many on the left would suspect Bush and Rove of manipulating the data, or are you just being and[sic] idiot and an asshole?
The idiot would be the person so desperate to sound like he's being logical that he must use a hypothetical because the evidence in the real world works against his opinion... over and over again - voter fraud would be another example.
Considering the *fact* (ie. not hypothetical) that the Bush admin had a history of manipulating and outright lying to the American people, your attempt to make a point is futile because we'd have every right to suspect them. People like you just throw shit out there and think you've made a point.
"Oh, well what if Obama wanted to start the Iraq war, you would've supported it." HE WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED THE WAR - THAT'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.
Republicans have shown themselves to be vile at every turn.
[quote]Considering the *fact* (ie. not hypothetical) that the Bush admin had a history of manipulating and outright lying to the American people, your attempt to make a point is futile because we'd have every right to suspect them. People like you just throw shit out there and think you've made a point.
You don't even realize you just proved my point, do you?
Welch has invested a lot of money in one of the super-PACs to defeat Obama. He must be pissed off that it looks like he won't get a good return on this. People like him are used to getting their way - like spoiled children - and start acting out when they don't.
Does Welch really want to wreck whatever image he has by coming on like a Trump wannabe?
R22, you have no point.
The Bush admin used the raw emotions following 9/11 to get a war in Iraq - a war in the planning long before 9/11. The neo cons cherry-picked info and lied to the American public about the threat Iraq posed, and they even threw in an OBL-Saddam connection where there was none. They also outed a CIA agent because her husband was sent to Niger and found nothing - he didn't play along with their deception, so they outed his wife.
Now it's your turn to show us what Obama has done on that scale so that there is any logic to freepers' claim that Obama has "cooked the books" sans ANY evidence. Welch said himself he has no evidence whatsoever. We have *evidence* of the Bush administration's deceptions - it comes in the form of hundreds of thousands of dead people and no WMDs.
Delusions about what Obama has done or is capable of doing is not the same as what Bush had actually done, so you are in fact, an asshole incapable of knowing the difference between tangible evidence and one's imagination.
My point was a simple one. If this had happened in the Bush years we would be suspicious. I said nothing about the merits of suspicion in either case. Since you agree with me I'm not sure why your panties are in a wad.
[quote]I said nothing about the merits of suspicion in either case.
Sorry, but that seems like a rather silly line of reasoning, because the merits [bold]do[/bold] matter. What's the point of even making that argument? I mean really, what do you gain? Nothing.
OK, great. Both sides would do it, but the Repubs gave us ample reason to question what they would have done because they used trumped up evidence to lie the US into war -- among other things. And, and, and, on the Dem side there is mere conjecture and speculation -- without a shred of evidence -- that the Labor Department cooked the books at Obama's behest or on his behalf. And there is no proof that in the past four years he has done anything similar.
You cannot make this into an equivalent situation by saying that liberals, progressives, and Democrats would have been equally suspicious of Bush administration numbers but then yell, "halt," and refuse to go beyond that. The fact that Bush and Cheney gave us ample reason to be suspicious undercuts the force of any claim that "both sides do it."
Very well-argued, R26.
[quote]Sorry, but that seems like a rather silly line of reasoning, because the merits do matter.
There was NO line of reasoning. Just a simple observation. This argument is all in your head.
"There was NO line of reasoning."
Yes, that's clear.
In profile he looks like Nosferatau. Thank the Fates we didn't see his hands.
[quote]There was NO line of reasoning. Just a simple observation. This argument is all in your head.
What a little weasel. You can't admit that you were wrong, so instead you attempted, poorly, to twist it around to appear that your intentions were simply misconstrued. Your six previous posts on this subject, however, stand in stark contrast to the "this was a simple observation" fantasy.
[quote]Do you deny that many on the left would suspect Bush and Rove of manipulating the data, or are you just being and idiot and an asshole?
[quote]You don't even realize you just [bold]proved my point[/bold], do you?
[quote][bold]My point[/bold] was a simple one. If this had happened in the Bush years we would be suspicious. I said nothing about the merits of suspicion in either case. Since you agree with me I'm not sure why your panties are in a wad.
Well, as R29 noted, at least you got the "no line of reasoning" part correct.
The "line of reasoning" that you are arguing against is all in your head and not in my words. But you seem to enjoy debunking the points I never made, and you imagine you are scoring points by quoting me but not refuting me, so do go on.
[quote]You can't admit that you were wrong, so instead you attempted, poorly, to twist it around to appear that your intentions were simply misconstrued.
Please point specifically to what I said that is wrong. Not what you imagine I was thinking--my actual words.
The fact that you mentioned it at all knowing full-well we'd have every right to suspect Bush & Co. of doing something like that because we have more than enough evidence of similar behavior from them, is why we think you're full of shit with your 'observation' claim.
Don't act like this isn't the first time we've seen similar "observations" involving this comparison - and very rarely is it accurate.
There has always been an attempt to conflate the left's view of Bush with that of the right's view of Obama... as though the reality of what Bush had done is the same as the hysteria that exists solely in the minds of the right in regards to what Obama has done or will do or went back in time and already did.
Your "observation" was a dumb one - you just can't admit it.
It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain that I am coming from the left myself, so all the intentions you ascribe to me are, once again, ALL IN YOUR HEAD.
Rev. Al actually made a good commnent on this issue: if Obama is cooking the books, he would have been doing it all along and produced much more favorable numbers.
Mitt Rmney is a long-time admirer and friend of Jack Welch's and gives him props for turning GE around. So it doesn't surprise me that they would use his old grey ass to throw the first pitch on the "fake statistics." This is comparable to Clint Eastwood and the chair.
Your observation should've included: "but you'd have a reason to suspect them, unlike the rightwing."
Besides, as someone pointed out earlier, show me a prominent left-winger who would claim something like this. Jack Welch, Steve Forbes and the FOX idiots are claiming something nefarious was done; it isn't just the usual right=wing troglodytes.
When the reports were all shitty prior to this latest one and the rightwing would use each report to highlight Obama's broken promise of "under 8", and they'd spend the next month repeating "under 8," why didn't the left spend every month accusing the BLS of "cooking the books" to make Obama look bad?
There's absolutely no reason to make this "observation" except to conflate the two.
[quote]Please point specifically to what I said that is wrong.
No, because you are being willfully obtuse and deliberately evasive. So, no.
R25, Welch stated this as a fact - not as a suspicion.
It took a while for the mainstream to catch on to GWB's lies. Perhaps in his second term, broadcast journalists may have reported on such suspicion...but he got a pass his first term. From just about everybody.
And being suspicous of GWB would have been wise, considering how he blatantly lied to us.
This situation is entirely different. We have a Republican Party who has openly disrespected America's first black president. Joe Wilson even yelled "you lie!" at a State of the Uniom.
Yet there was no outrage from that party -whatsoever - during the Bush years. I don't have time to list all of his abuses. But we all collectively remember his era as dark days.
This president has done nothing to suggest that his "Chicago guys" cooked the books. That is completely imagined. The right's suspicion of Obama casts light on only one thing: their own neuroses. They seriously need help -- they are clearly losing their minds.
R39, and Welch even lied about his tweet. He claimed he was merely asking the question, when there was no question mark.
He's a rancid old man who you know was up to no good within his own company, so of course he's going to assume everyone else does it, even though the BLS has a stellar reputation when it comes to impartiality.
They are not losing their minds, R39. They are just throwing everything they can think of out there and hoping things will stick.
[quote]Your observation should've included: "but you'd have a reason to suspect them, unlike the rightwing."
Why? To prevent hothead idiots from foaming at the mouth? Not my responsibility.
[quote]why didn't the left spend every month accusing the BLS of "cooking the books" to make Obama look bad?
Because it would have been rather silly when the Secretary of Labor works for Obama.
R41, so true. I was watching "This Week" and reading tweets.
Mary Matlin was incredibly rude to Krugman and pulled a Scott Brown by constantly referring to him as "professor." Most of the tweets were cheering her on for "calling out Krugman the liar."
Do these people think that simply being loud, overbearing and insulting means you're winning the argument?
What a sick joke Republicans have become.
These guys all look the same. OLD, liver spotted and cloudy eyed. If I had a dog who looked like that, I would be compelled to put it to sleep. If only we could!
YOu know, if the news edia is rally thinking about it's profitability and interests, they ought to make sure Obama is re-elected. They are infinitely more interesting than the Romneys.