An argument with Darrel

[Savonarola]

In philosophy, we distinguish between different types of negation, so "a negated negative in philosophy is a positive" is not always the case.

I suppose that's what I get for sticking with only basic philosophy coursework. Always good to learn something new.

For example, to say "'The present king of France has no hair' is not true" does not mean that that one is asserting that there is a present king of France who has hair. Bertrand Russell gave a series of lectures on this topic. I could go on and on...

Is a series of lectures on why not does not mean not anything like discourse about what the meaning of is is?

[Doug]

Is a series of lectures on why not does not mean not anything like discourse about what the meaning of is is?

DOUG
We distinguish between different uses of "is" also, by the way. "Lightning is an electrical discharge," "Arkansas is south of Missouri," are different uses of "is," for example.

But Bertrand Russell was getting at some fundamental issues that perplexed philosophers in the early 20th century. Such as how it is that two things that are identical are not always substitutable. "The author of Waverly" is the same person as "Sir Walter Scott," but when King George IV wanted to know whether Scott was the author of Waverly, he was not asking whether Scott was Scott. So identicals cannot always be substitutable. How can this be? This was a puzzle a century ago. In this way, not only do negations in philosophy not always coincide with those in math, neither does the "=" sign.

The most important issue he was getting at is how we mean things with words. If words are meaningful only when we designate something with them, then how can we mean anything by "unicorn"? So musn't I be designating something by that term? Or else I am talking about nothing! And if I'm talking about nothing, I am talking nonsense. But it can't be nonsense to say "Unicorns do not exist." It may be false (if they do exist), but it is not nonsense. So "unicorn" must mean something. But surely I can't mean just my idea of a unicorn when I say "unicorn," since when I deny that unicorns exist, I am not denying that my idea of them exists or else I would not mean anything by the term after all.

See, you got me started...

[Doug]

DOUG
Oh, and in case some of you did not see the long roast in the Big Doggie Dump thread, the guy arguing with Darrel about the chart is still insisting that Darrel was wrong to say that the chart showed something good.

[Savonarola]

See, you got me started...

My question was actually rhetorical for (admittedly slight) humorous effect, though I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't awfully curious when I decided not to actually ask you to elaborate.

You could go on and on, and I would read it and enjoy it.

[Dardedar]

Speaking of going on and on... this Mike fellow popped in here because he thought he had me on something and was going to embarrass me on home turf. That didn't turn out as planned so after two posts he ran, yet he is still kicking in the same thread on Bigd's site. I'll copy this latest one here because when I posted Doug's example and explanation of equivocation above he then went on to claim Doug is agreeing with him.

So I am seeing if he wants to put his money where is mouth is.

His latest comment starts here with mine right below. I'll copy my response below.

***
MIKE: "OK, I looked back and found your math skills are the ability to count with your fingers. Impressive!">>

DAR
Nope, sorry. You screwed it up again Mike. It was Adam who said that. And he was making fun of you.

MIKE: Less bad is not good.">>

DAR
You didn't learn. I am so surprised!

MIKE: your professor is arguing my point.">>

DAR
How much do you want to bet? How about $1,000. Seriously. My professor explained how you are committing the fallacy of equivocation (just as I explained to you over and over). Were you under the impression that when someone tells you that you are using a logical fallacy that this is a compliment? A good thing?

MIKE: The professor states that comparing the lesser of two bads is still bad,">>

DAR
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what he said:

"Similarly, losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month." [CAPS his]

MIKE: That’s my point not yours.">>

DAR
I think people are starting to feel sorry for you. I hope so.

MIKE: The lesser of two bads is not good, that a net job loss is still bad even if it wasn’t as bad as the previous period.">>

DAR
Again, that is the exact word for word opposite of what he said, and I have said. You should go and lie down now.

MIKE: And BTW even the trend is down from November. You do see that?">>

DAR
So you would like to pull yet a new logical fallacy out of your silly bag. Cherry picking one or two months.

You know, months ago, I had you pegged as a dumb ass within your first couple of posts but I realize now, I had NO IDEA of what you were capable of. I think you should keep digging at this point. It looks good on ya.

And do let me know if you want to wager $1,000 on whether the good professor is agreeing with you. But even better, if you accept this offer within 24 hours, I'll even sweeten the pot 100 to 1. My thousand dollars to your ten spot. Interested? We'll see.

I've got a thousand bucks that says how confident I am of my position. We'll see if you've got $10 worth of confidence in your position. I'm gonna guess no.

D.
-----------------
"Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." --ibid

cc. Professor Doug.

[Dardedar]

Mike responds:

***
Mike Radigan says:
Thursday Mar 11th, 2010 at 08:34

I’m done arguing with you. A net loss of jobs is ALWAYS bad, ALWAYS bad! It’s foolish to think otherwise,

You think you can ignore the x-axis, that says it all.

You cannot disagree with anyone without name calling. I’m finding myself wanting to do that with you and I don’t like it. So long, Darrel.

***
My response:
***

MIKE: I’m done arguing with you.>>

DAR
So there we have it. Mike claims Doug is arguing his point, not mine. But when offered $1,000 if his claim is true (and he need only risk $10 of his money), Mike runs FULL SPEED from standing by his claim.

So we find that when it comes down to the crunch, even Mike doesn't believe the material he writes. Money talks, BS walks.

D.
---------------
cc. Professor Doug
cc. Freethinker forum

[Dardedar]

Wee bit more:

***
#

Mike Radigan says:
Thursday Mar 11th, 2010 at 12:20

I was wrong about Doug’s argument. It was late and I skipped over some stuff much as I do yours. I will also admit I didn’t know fallacy of equivocation. Having looked it up I don’t know that I agree with Doug’s interpretation. Regardless, I’ll never agree that less bad is good. And as stated the reason I’m done arguing with you is because I’m tired of the name calling. If you think as argument is foolish state that, do not make it personal. Bye, Darrel.

****
RESPONSE.
Darrel says:
Thursday Mar 11th, 2010 at 20:30

MIKE: “I’ll never agree that less bad is good.”>>

DAR
But of course you do it in your day to day life all the time.

Staying with Doug’s example, if someone said their child totaled the car, you might say, “that’s bad,” then if they added “but insurance is paying for it and no one was hurt” you might say “that’s good.”

So does this accident then go in the “good” box or the “bad” box? You JUST said (in my example) something about the accident was GOOD. How could that be? So we see “good” depends on the context and perspective. Some aspects of an event, item, CHART can be good from one perspective and bad from another.

Likewise, as Doug said:

“…losing jobs is not good, but it IS good that fewer and fewer jobs are being lost each month.”

This is the simple fact you have failed to grasp.

This is actually a keen insight into a typical trait of the mind of conservatives. A difficulty in seeing/understanding nuance. A comfort with easy black/white answers and a discomfort with gray areas and considering different frames of reference. Something is to be viewed as good, or bad, right or wrong. Never mind that “good” and “bad,” right and wrong are human constructs and are almost always subjective and change depending upon perspective.

MIKE: “…I’m done arguing with you is because I’m tired of the name calling.”>>

DAR
Sorry, not buying it. You have thrown no end of ad hominems, most of them made up. You tried denigrating my education, intelligence, my honesty, the country I came from. You called me a liar six times in just this thread. Then you went on to hypothesize a completely fictional insult regarding divorce and alimony. This is not how a person who is touchy about “name calling” acts. I can take it or leave it, doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. But spare me the sudden feigned sensitivity.

D.

[Mike Radigan]

I wasn’t going to come back here but Darrel started e-mailing me out of the blue regarding the chart again at the beginning of this topic. I thought I’d respond here as I’m not going to go back and forth with him anymore via e-mail.

First, Darrel is a coward. He will not respond to my direct question of how much math background he has.

He is also dishonest. He tries to divert the argument with another argument where there is none. For example, he blames the left part of the chart on Bush and praises Obama for the right side. What he neglects to say I never argued that point. Also regarding the chart he stated the trend is up and implied I disagree with that. I never did. My only argument was the net job change is still bad as long as a period is below the x-axis, a net job loss for the period. He further stated the x-axis can be ignored, only the trend matters. I tried e-mailing him similar examples, but then he accuses me of diverting. Yes, they were different examples, but he wasn’t getting the original argument.

Regarding the trend here is an exact cut and paste from his e-mail regarding the chart’s trend.

MK: The trend MUST eventually go up. It has to.>>

DAR
Nope. Doesn't.

Does anyone on this site have enough math background to point out to him that the trend must eventually go up. If no one points out his mistake then you are all either math illiterate or this site is corrupt.

Now, once again, I’m done here. No use sending me any more e-mail, Darrel, as I just blocked you.

[kwlyon]

Mike and Darrel,

I am confused by this argument. I have an EXCEPTIONAL math background...so explain the argument to me and I will see if I can put my substantial expertise to good use. Are you referring to the jobs lost/created plot spanning bush's and obama's time in office? It seems like you are in agreement that Bush may well shoulder a lot of the blame for the horrible negative trend of job creation that seemed to plague his term in office. It also seems that neither party is denying that there is a stark turn of the trend during Obama's term. I am not much of an economist however this does seem rather compelling on the surface.

Mike,

It seems that you are arguing that Obama is doing a horrible job in turning around the trend of negative job creation simply because it did not magically jump into the positive the minute he took office...is this what you are arguing? Because that would be absurd... surely I am misunderstanding you. Also, no...if this data is to be accepted as accurate it shows a VERY clear trend during the bush years--a trend which reverses sharply during the obama administration. Again I am no economist however I can assure you that, if this data is to be accepted, it provides very strong evidence that SOMETHING changed when Obama took office. There is no indication that the trend would start going up during the Bush years--the trend of job loss reported here is damn near exponential. If we can assume that this is due to policy change instigated by the Obama administration, then this reduction in job loss reflects VERY positively on the administration. Of course the economic downturn and the associated job loss is not going to turn into a economic boom over night...these things have a substantial hysteresis! Please explain to me how I am misunderstanding your argument. Then I will try to convey this to Darrel as I am sure he is operating under a similar misunderstanding. Darrel is quite a bit more informed with regards to economics, politics, and other such things than I. I am the mathematics expert however. If this is truly a disagreement centered around mathematics I am certain he will place great weight on my expert opinion. If, however, your analysis of this data rest solely on the assertion that "It had to turn around some time"....Well then, that is just retarded...and there is a reason why Darrel is bitch-slapping you.

Kevin

[Mike Radigan]

Kevin, my argument had nothing to do with fixing blame. And I agreed the trend was up. All I stated was a net job change resulting in a loss of jobs for a period was bad. Not as bad as the period before if the trend was up, but still bad until the net job change is a gain in jobs. Darrel stated the x-axis could be ignored, all that mattered was the trend. I stated the trend had to eventually go up. He stated it did not. I cut and pasted his reply stating such. The trend has to eventually go up even with a net job loss. Likewise the trend must eventually turn around and go down even if their is still a net job gain.

[kwlyon]

Kevin, my argument had nothing to do with fixing blame. And I agreed the trend was up. All I stated was a net job change resulting in a loss of jobs for a period was bad. Not as bad as the period before if the trend was up, but still bad until the net job change is a gain in jobs. Darrel stated the x-axis could be ignored, all that mattered was the trend. I stated the trend had to eventually go up. He stated it did not. I cut and pasted his reply stating such. The trend has to eventually go up even with a net job loss. Likewise the trend must eventually turn around and go down even if their is still a net job gain.

Okay...And you don't see how this argument is absurd? Am I understanding you? You ARE arguing that the abrupt change in this exponentially increasing trend of job loss could just be due to random statistical fluctuation, right? Are you really saying that you would not concede that an administration is doing a good job unless the new administration came in and imparted changes in our public policy that created an IMMEDIATE positive job creation trend? What you are asking for here is completely unreasonable. I think I have to agree with Darrel on this one--all that is important in this data is the trend. The trend shows strong evidence that the job market is healing. The fact that we are not in the black yet is quite inconsequential. And of COURSE the trend does not need to eventually go up! Are you saying that it would be impossible to intentionally drive our economy into the ground? It sounds like this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity..."America Can't Fail! That would be unthinkable!!!" This data implies that we are WELL on our way to breaking into the positive...I'm sorry...what are you arguing again? Are you just trying to say that Darrel is an asshole? I mean you can just say that if you like...I don't think anyone here will mind. We as freethinkers tend to be very realistic regarding the utility of assholes...I mean without them the world would be constipated.

Now, I may have misunderstood. Are you arguing that this plot does NOT imply anything about the effectiveness of either administration but rather is just the natural oscillations of the job market? I think that, perhaps, an argument might be made for this...I would be quite skeptical toward such an argument...to say the least...but an argument could be made non the less. Where I am confused, then, is in your assertion that the data reflects negatively on either administration. Again it seems you are expecting a president to ride in on a magic white pony and swish and flick the job market into immediate growth.

Kevin

[Mike Radigan]

You ARE arguing that the abrupt change in this exponentially increasing trend of job loss could just be due to random statistical fluctuation, right?

I am only arguing the data not what it represents and am fixing no blame. It could be losses at a casino. All I'm saying is a net loss is bad.

Do you agree the trend must eventually go down? Yes or no? Darrel stated it never has to go down. Do you agree with me that it has to eventually go down or with Darrel that it never has to go down?

[kwlyon]

You ARE arguing that the abrupt change in this exponentially increasing trend of job loss could just be due to random statistical fluctuation, right?

I am only arguing the data not what it represents and am fixing no blame. It could be losses at a casino. All I'm saying is a net loss is bad.

Do you agree the trend must eventually go down? Yes or no? Darrel stated it never has to go down. Do you agree with me that it has to eventually go down or with Darrel that it never has to go down?

Okay...yes. I agree that loss of jobs, particularly a net loss of jobs in our current economic situation, is bad. However turning a trend of near exponential job loss in the 80 thousands to the point where we are almost back to zero net loss during one administration is EXCELLENT progress. I also would be hard pressed to accept this is just the natural cycle of the job market. If this data is to be believed, it would seem to suggest that the obama administration is doing something very right that the bush administration was doing very wrong--however this is not the only possible explanation of course.

Are you asking if I agree that the trend of increasing job loss must eventually turn around no matter what?... because of course not! No economy nor country last forever. Historically they all fall in time. Total economic collapse is certainly a very real possibility. America is not immune from such a fate...in fact it seems to me that many of our leaders are doing their damnedest to assure this end. Not intentionally, of course, however americans as a whole have no since of the fitness of leaders. We elect a few winners and a WHOLELOTTA idiots. This is kinda scary because, generally speaking, it is harder to turn an economy around into positive growth from an economic decline than it is to initiate the decline in the first place. It takes effort, wit, and a whole lotta taking action to heal a job market...it's not just a matter of waiting for the tides to turn. If this data is accurate, something big has changed for the better. It may not be Obama's doing...but something is being done right that was very much being done wrong before. These trends do not just change of their own volition...not on the scale this data implies.

Kevin

[Mike Radigan]

We're getting closer. I'm saying the trend must eventually go down because as the trend goes up it has to slow down as there are no more jobs to be gained. The period after a gain to absolutely full employment must create a down trend as neither a job gain or loss (net zero) is less than the previous period of net job gain. That is all I'm saying, but Darrel disagrees.

[kwlyon]

We're getting closer. I'm saying the trend must eventually go down because as the trend goes up it has to slow down as there are no more jobs to be gained. The period after a gain to absolutely full employment must create a down trend as neither a job gain or loss (net zero) is less than the previous period of net job gain. That is all I'm saying, but Darrel disagrees.

I agree with this statement. I think you will find that Darrel will as well. However, If I understand you now, you were not making yourself very clear. Basically here you are saying that there is a logical MAXIMUM number of jobs (100% employment). Obviously you will see a leveling off or even a net loss of jobs as we approach this limit. So you are arguing that this data IS in the noise...You will need to convince me of that. 80,000 jobs lost seems like an awful lot to me however it is a rather small percent of the US population. Can you produce a similar graph showing net job creation farther into the past? It might be a good idea if it is corrected for population. Now that I have a clear idea of what you are arguing it does not seem quite so crazy. I was under the impression you were referring to the trend of increasing job LOSS....which certainly does not have to turn around...ever. That trend can continue until the game over point.

I think where you created some serious confusion is in your agreement that the data was meaningful...when in fact you do NOT agree that the data is meaningful--you feel the trend is not the product of any particular administrations endevors but rather just fluctuations of the job market. Do I have this right?

I will agree that the numbers are not large relative to the population...however the sudden inflection in the trend does appear to be very real. None the less showing a longer period of data would be telling. Are you going to make a case for this just being normal fluctuations of the job market or were you just generally pointing out the possibility of this being the case? I would be fascinated to see this same plot extended back through multiple administrations. I would like to know if there is a clear trend of job loss/creation that corresponds to the party in power.

Kevin

[kwlyon]

Darrel states that it is OK to ignore the x-axis and elements showing Obama’s net jobs all point up. I agree with him that up is good and I agree that the trend is up. However, I disagree that any element below the x-axis is good. Darrel says it is good and points up. I say no it is not. There is still a net job loss and points down. While it might be better than the previous month, it is still bad if there is a net job loss.

Here is the confusion...This is a VERY different argument than what you have just presented to me. In this case I partially agree with Darrel...yes...the trend turning up so dramatically is a good thing. However I would not say that "Obama's net jobs all point up" as this is misleading. I would say that the TREND is pointing up. It is not where we are that matters so much as where we are headed. It is really the derivative of this plot that we are interested in. Job loss is bad...but decreasing rates of job loss does imply that there will be net job creation in time if the trend continues. This is what I assume Darrel was arguing. I wish he would pop his head in here as I don't like potentially putting words in his mouth.

Again I will make the point that you do not really expect to see a stark discontinuity in this data. There is a substantial hysteresis in the job market thus a sudden shift to positive job creation from -80k is simply not going to happen over the course of even a few months. This is one of the things I find strange about this data...it almost seems that the derivative is slightly discontinuous at the point corresponding to the change in administration. This system has quite a lot of inertia and I would expect it to have well defined, continuous derivatives unless it is given a hell of a kick. If this data is real this sharp inflection must be driven by a rather substantial and sudden change in the status quo.


Kevin

[Dardedar]

I wasn’t going to come back here but Darrel started e-mailing me out of the blue regarding the chart again at the beginning of this topic.

DAR
Let's be accurate rather than sloppy. I sent you a new chart, with updated data, and two additional charts.

I thought I’d respond here as I’m not going to go back and forth with him anymore via e-mail.

DAR
Good, I much prefer here. Email is fine to, if you aren't afraid.

First, Darrel is a coward.

DAR
Note to Mike, actions speak louder than words. You just sent me another insulting email, with a question, and then you announce you have blocked me from responding. I'll gladly respond to you here or in email. So aside from mere words, who's actions are consistent with cowardice? It's a real easy question Mike. You very rarely respond to questions unfortunately.

He will not respond to my direct question of how much math background he has.

DAR
This is a favorite ad hominem of Mike's. One time he was so desperate for something to throw at me he started insulting the weather in Arkansas. No, really.

As explained repeatedly, and Mike has already admitted, his entire misunderstanding here has to do with a simple equivocation on his part and actually has nothing whatsoever to do with math. This has already been explained to Mike, in this very thread, by myself and Doug. Mike admitted on Big
Dog's forum that he wasn't familiar with the word "equivocation" and, as I remember, he admitted that Doug was right (even though I had told him the same thing a month earlier).

Mike gets a different answer to what is "good" because he uses a different reference point. Thus when he says I am wrong about up being good (always in reference to the trend as explained to him ad naseaum), he is equivocating.

He is also [insult] He tries to... he neglects to say... He further stated... he accuses me of...

DAR
Kevin can save himself some grief and ignore, as I do, whenever Mike makes a claim about someone saying something in the past, even if only hours have passed. I respond to Mike points directly, verbatim, always have. But Mike can't seem to get my comments straight even when they are moments old. Some of this stuff he is trying to remember (but doesn't quote) is now four months old.

Every response I have given to Mike's stuff about this foolishness and his simple misunderstanding is posted in the Big Doggy DUMP, Thread number five. Please note: I post my exchanges with Mike in public out of sheer cowardice.

No use sending me any more e-mail, Darrel, as I just blocked you.

DAR
And you did this because... *I* am the coward. Good stuff!

D.

[Dardedar]

Kevin, my argument had nothing to do with fixing blame. And I agreed the trend was up.

DAR
Then Mike should have shut his yap at that very point, because that was all I was saying (as I have pointed out before in this very thread). But he doesn't stop, he keeps digging. Mike should just read this very thread (he created) and see that he is making the same mistakes, spinning his wheels, and forgetting.

KEVIN: I'm sorry...what are you arguing again?

DAR
Any exchanges with Mike tend to lead to this reoccurring question.

KEVIN
Job loss is bad...but decreasing rates of job loss does imply that there will be net job creation in time if the trend continues.

DAR
Bingo! And it did. Hence the reason I sent Mike an updated chart showing this progress. I knew it would get his panties in a wad. Then he calls me names, calls me a coward, and then he runs.

This is what I assume Darrel was arguing.

DAR
Precisely. Actually, not even that much. Just that a trend up is good (considering the alternative). Let me quote from my very first response in this thread:

Mike said: "I disagree that any element below the x-axis is good. "

Incidentally, Mike has said variations of this over and over. Being a conservative he likes bright and shiny lines dividing things and completely separate boxes for the good, the bad and the ugly. But the world is a little more messy than that. It's not true that all elements below the line are equally not good. As he just said to me yesterday (before running):

"Do you not understand that the direction of the TREND is not that meaningful? It's the absolute that is meaningful."

Spoken like a true conservative! They love their absolutes. But I digress.

As I responded earlier to his comment (in this thread):

"DAR: This pretends that the elements below the zero line are equal. They are not. Some are MUCH better than others. So it's quite appropriate to refer to the very low numbers as "good" (-36k) when compared to the very bad numbers (-736k). And note that the zero line is an arbitrary distinction anyway. We need a positive of about 150k a month just to stay even with growth of the workforce and economy. So "zero" is still not good and 100k is not "good" in the sense you are trying for."

Oh and Kevin, the actual job loses in the original chart in this thread are times ten, I don't know why that is marked incorrectly. Add a zero to all of those numbers. 700,000 jobs lost, not 70.

I would be fascinated to see this same plot extended back through multiple administrations. I would like to know if there is a clear trend of job loss/creation that corresponds to the party in power.

DAR
Excellent question and yes, we have an answer. I already sent this to Mike but he ignored it as he generally does any discomforting information.

You can read my short letter here, but here is the relevant part:

How about job creation? James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”

Terribly partisan source but is he right? Yes.

More (from that thread):

The Nobel Prize winning Krugman does a comparison similar to Carville's except it is from July. Perhaps this is a chart from his book. Demo's hold the top four spots. GW Bush, is of course last.

Paul Krugman, NYT

This is better:

The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House

An excerpt:

"Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations."
--Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted non-farm payrolls."

Here is another. This fellow examines the last 13 presidents. He also examines the record during Congress. Democratic Presidents hold the top six slots.

Annual
Job
Growth………Party……………President
8.8%………….Democratic…….Roosevelt (1939-war)
3.5%…………..Democratic…….Johnson
3.3%…………..Democratic…….Carter
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Clinton
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Roosevelt (wartime)
2.4%…………..Democratic…….Truman
2.3%…………..Republican.…….Reagan
2.1%…………..Republican……..Nixon
2.1% …………..Democratic…….Kennedy
0.8%…………..Republican…….Ford
0.5%…………..Republican…….Eisenhower
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush II
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush I

I do hope you stick around Mike. Maybe you'll learn something new?

D.

[kwlyon]

Kevin can save himself some grief and ignore, as I do, whenever Mike makes a claim about someone saying something in the past, even if only hours have passed.

Grief? I have rather enjoyed this. I hope he comes back and "clarifies" his argument. Mike seems like an alright guy...in that he doesn't eat babies. But I think he may well be the type to get all flustered and, rather than admit uncertainty or error, simply pontificate to whomever will listen various arguments that are not particularly well developed. This has the effect of confusing the hell out of the other side thus, hopefully, leading to rhetorical victory! Thanks for showing up Darrel. Feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your position. I haven't read the entire exchange.

Oh and Kevin, the actual job loses in the original chart in this thread are times ten, I don't know why that is marked incorrectly. Add a zero to all of those numbers. 700,000 jobs lost, not 70.

Wow...yea...that order of magnitude makes a BIG difference. We are now talking about the entire population of arkansas loosing their employment over the span of five months or so. Mike you are going to have to make one HELL of a solid argument to both agree to the accuracy of this data AND convince me that this is just the fluctuation of the job market...if that is even what you were asserting.

"Do you not understand that the direction of the TREND is not that meaningful? It's the absolute that is meaningful."

Well, if you are going to make that assertion, then why not integrate this plot? I mean the real variable here is the number of employed americans. This plot actually is the first derivative of that variable--the rate of change of employment. I now assert that the jobs lost or gained doesn't really matter. All that matters is how many americans are employed. This number is POSITIVE! This is good...so I win!

Kevin

[Dardedar]

I hope he comes back and "clarifies" his argument.

DAR
It's all pretty much laid out in this very thread he created. If I hadn't pushed his buttons he probably would have seen the light at the very beginning. Sometimes it works to use the brass knuckles, sometimes not. The whole thing is based upon silliness and him using a different reference point for the most subjective and squishy notion of "good." Conservatives have the hardest time with relative notions of good and this has just been a big example of that.

KEVIN: Feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your position. I haven't read the entire exchange.

DAR
Well then you did extraordinarily well in that you were relying upon Mike's recollection. If you just read through this thread, it would all be pretty clear.

Incidentally, as you know, these charts just show a correlation and the way they line up so perfectly in the transfer between Bush and Obama is most certainly fluky. They're just fun because they make the far right squirm so. But underneath it all is the fact that these categories have done better, objectively and demonstrably better, when non-right-wing nuts are in power.

D.