It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bikini Graph

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I was curious if any Obama-hater wanted to comment on this graph. Well not curious as much as just needing a good laugh.











[edit on 13-5-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Not a hater, but the Obama admin. and friends created that graph, and they are using fuzzy math. If they state that they "saved" x amount of jobs, they will add that amount to their totals of "created", instead of leaving them static and uncounted. They probably recount the saved amount and add it to the previous saved amount, which is like that Penny a Day, Doubled Every Day parable, where at the end you get a whole lot out of not much to begin with.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
Not a hater, but the Obama admin. and friends created that graph, and they are using fuzzy math. If they state that they "saved" x amount of jobs, they will add that amount to their totals of "created", instead of leaving them static and uncounted. They probably recount the saved amount and add it to the previous saved amount, which is like that Penny a Day, Doubled Every Day parable, where at the end you get a whole lot out of not much to begin with.


This is not true. This is the same jobs data used across administrations.

You are talking about how many jobs the admin. estimated the recovery (stimulus) bill had saved, which isn't as clear-cut as the actual jobs data illustrated in the shown graph.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/13/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Check this out-



See it?

Me either.

Wow, the graph makers are hard at work at the Cass Sunstein school of propaganda er... I mean economics.

Only here at ATS would someone post a conspiracy to attempt to show another conspiracy!


Let me see, continual increase of ALL unemployment numbers since getting into office. Except where they fudge in Census employees, $8000 house purchase coupon, etc etc etc.

Do not look now, the emperor has NO CLOTHES!




edit to add-Hmmmm, I wonder if Rachel and others are getting Stimulus money to pander their propaganda wares.

Hmmm, Cass Sunstein, propaganda much?

[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



Do not look now, the emperor has NO CLOTHES


5/5 for being part of the group to use that over and over and over.

The graph, however "smudged" displays data on a level field.

Its not comparing Bush to Obama with separate x and y axis

What is hilarious to me - is that EVERYONE seems to be either against Obama (and for Bush) or against Bush and for Obama.

Neither one of them gave, or current give, a flying rip about you OR the number of jobs in this country.

Smudge all the numbers you want, they're both one in the same.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by primus2012
Not a hater, but the Obama admin. and friends created that graph, and they are using fuzzy math. If they state that they "saved" x amount of jobs, they will add that amount to their totals of "created", instead of leaving them static and uncounted. They probably recount the saved amount and add it to the previous saved amount, which is like that Penny a Day, Doubled Every Day parable, where at the end you get a whole lot out of not much to begin with.


This is not true. This is the same jobs data used across administrations.

You are talking about how many jobs the admin. estimated the recovery (stimulus) bill had saved, which isn't as clear-cut as the actual jobs data illustrated in the shown graph.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/13/2010 by skunknuts]


Yeah, my explanation is probably wrong, but the chart was indeed created by Obama and Friends and they used fuzzy math. I believe it actually came from the office of The Speaker of the House. It may be accurate, but it's accurate to what they want us to see, and not what the whole truth is.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I've been wanting to say and I believe many other members would agree, OP your picture is HOT


I will be honest, the name of this thread is why I came here. Obama lies and Americans die or become homeless. What can we say? The world goes on...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Found this from politicalmathblog.com

How to Use Charts to Say Anything


How To Use Charts To Say Anything
Do you want to convince people that your side is right with only the flimsiest proof? Does the idea of tricking people with numbers make you all happy inside? Then come join us as we walk through “How To Use Charts To Say Anything”.

Step 1: Massaging the Data
The first step is to grab the data that makes your point the best. Let’s use it to prove that a Democratic president is good for jobs.

“How can we do such a thing” you ask?

Let’s grab some raw jobs data. We’re going to take this data




and make it look like this:



How did we do that? Was it magic?

Nope, it’s called the first derivative. It works like this. Instead of worrying about how high the line is, we’re only going to worry about how steep the line is. That way, the number will look good even if we keep losing jobs. Instead of charting how many jobs there are, we’re charting how many jobs we’re still losing.

That turns the first chart (which looks bad) into the second chart (which looks good).

Step 2: Pick colors that make you look good
Next, we pick some colors. We could pick the default colors that Excel gives us when we chart two different kinds of numbers. But that’s too neutral. By way of comparison:



As you can see, we’ve taken the default red (for George Bush) and made it darker and richer. This is like drawing a Snidely Whiplash mustache on him so that we know he’s the bad guy. Then, we’ll make the President Obama blue lighter and softer so we know he’s the good guy.

Step 3: Do NOT give any context!
Finally, and this is the most important part, only give information that is helpful. And by helpful, I mean favorable to your side.

It’s OK to mention that President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law in the first quarter of 2009.

It’s not OK to mention that the initial stimulus reports from the first and second quarter were totally blank, which means that they didn’t really start spending the money until July.

Also, you should forget to mention that as of December, we’ve only spent 10% of the stimulus money.

If you give all of this unhelpful information, people might draw the conclusion that the stimulus didn’t really help very much.

And that would be bad.

Remember, we’re not interested in helping people understand the complexities of the economy. We just want them to look at the chart and say, “Bush bad. Obama good.”

I got my numbers for the last part of this from the stimulus reports on recovery.gov. Since I started looking at the data back in late 2009, they’ve changed the way they organize the data. Until a little over a month ago, the reports for 2009, Q1 and 2009, Q2 were blank. Zero data. Nothing. In the 2009 Q3 data they reported giving out about 4% of the stimulus money. By the end of 2009 Q4, they had reported giving out 10% of the simulus money.

Since then, they took the empty Q1, Q2 and the actual Q3 data and relabeled the file so that the Q3 data now says “February 17 – September 30, 2009″. There is no way to tell for certain when the money was sent out, but the amount of money marked as “recieved” ran on a curve that was about 4 months off. (Example: Most of the money that was marked as “recieved” was applied for in March, April and May. Very few places that applied for money after May marked it as recieved by the end of September. So…we see job losses slowing even before the money was making it out the door.

OK. Now to talk about my rebuttal chart and a well deserved explanation. I have the greatest readers of all time and many of you have pointed out that my rebuttal chart (seen here) commits many of the same fallacies that the Obama chart has.



My response to that would be “Yes it does. It was meant to.” I created that chart as the visual equivalent of saying “If your logic is correct, than you would be forced to accept this other conclusion as well since it uses the same logic.”

Both charts use jobs data taken from the same place, displayed the same way, stripped of context and used to push an ideological point using an implicit “correlation mean causation” line of argumentation.

Let me be clear: I do not think that a Republican Congress is the driving factor behind 8 million jobs created and I would NEVER say that. But I would say “Your chart implies that Obama is responsible for the slowing of job loss. If that is your argument, I would like to use the same chart logic to say that we need a Republican Congress to regain those jobs. By your own argument, you should be voting Republican this November.” I meant my chart to be a sort of visual rhetorical trick to be played in the context of the Obama stimulus chart to show that the numbers can be spun in either direction.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I’m more of a Federal Reserve Bank-hater than an Obama-hater, but I’ll comment on that graph. First, a basis for the explanation.

Regardless of which “administration” is in power, the Fed is running the show. It’s no secret that they have been the cause of every recession and depression since it’s inception. This depression will be over when the Fed decides to end it, and not before. Bush, Obama, and all the others just do as they are told. In order to give the American people the illusion of choice, Republicans must appear to support certain issues, and oppose others. Democrats support issues that republicans oppose, and oppose issues they support. It’s just the roles they play. The only time they show “bipartisanship” is when they are really screwing over the American people. The Patriot Act and the bailouts are examples of that sort of bipartisanship. When the Fed wants something done that the American people overwhelmingly oppose, “bipartisanship” is needed.

The Fed doesn’t want to use “bipartisanship” often, though, because it destroys the illusion of choice. They don’t want people asking, “Why is the government screwing us over?” Instead, they push the issues that are in line with whichever party is in power at the time. For instance, amnesty for illegal immigrants. They tried to push it through when republicans were in power, but it didn’t work out well because amnesty is an issue that democrats are supposed to support and republicans oppose. So, they just have to wait until democrats are in the majority, then they’ll push it through. The key is to have the people angry with one party or the other, but not the government as a whole. That’s how they did “health care reform”. Now, the people can be angry that those “darn democrats” screwed them. So they’ll “vote the bums out” and vote in the same bums they voted out last time. Of course, no matter how angry the American people get, the bums we vote in never undo the damage done by the bums we voted out. As Doctor Doom once said about battling the Fantastic Four, “I can lose 1000 times, I only have to win once.” “Health Care Reform” is a perfect example of this. Look at all the times it was voted down, but it kept coming back for another vote. Now that it’s law, it will never, ever, go away, no matter how disastrous it proves to be for the American People.

Now, on to the graph. It’s pure propaganda. The Fed has already determined that Obama is to serve another term as president. During his second term, he will push laws that will further enslave the American people to the Fed, without having to worry about his poll numbers or re-election. Now, they could just rig the election like they did in 2004, but that’s not something they want to do on a regular basis. Especially if the American people become too disenchanted with Obama. If they rig an election that’s not even close, they run the risk of becoming exposed. So, to make sure that it looks like the people have a choice, they need to make Obama look better. The Fed knows that Obama’s popularity has taken a huge hit. He has continued and escalated the wars in the Middle East. He has condoned torture, spying, and all the other things that the last “bum” did. Not the sort of “change” people were expecting when they voted for him. A lot of people who voted for him the first time around are disinclined to do so again.

You can expect a lot of “Obama is doing a good job” stories and charts until the 2012 election. You’ll see stories about how the economy is improving, jobs are being created, etc. But the MSM won’t show you the people living in tents or under overpasses because they’ve lost their homes. When someone loses their manufacturing job and goes to work part-time at McDonald’s, they’ll call that “job growth” since the person got a new job. The Fed will do, and is doing, whatever it can to cast Obama in a positive light.

For added insurance, they will run Sarah Palin or some other less illustrious ilk against him. Obama’s opponent will look like they have a chance until around August or September of 2012 when they will be instructed to do or say something so horrendously stupid that they will lose the election by a comfortable margin. Obama will win in 2012 with 65% to 70% of the vote. Remember, you read it here first!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
My real question is with MATH itself...

WTF is math anyways?

ITs something elites made to confuse people with "numbers", numbers are just letters
that you spell out things with, S-A-T-A-N = 12345 - E-V-I-L 1234

SEE

NOTHING good comes from this

Again in case you missed it

A-R-M-A-G-E-D-D-O-N
1 2 4 3 5 6 7 8 9 0

ALL the numbers are evil

Therefore
you lib tards have failed, AGAIN



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


If you believe these numbers, stay out of the casino. These numbers count all the make-work census jobs (over 700,000), all of the temporary jobs with dudes holding cones beside some highway project and a bunch of government paper pushers.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The graph was made using data from the bureau of Labor Statistics and they did use temp census workers in the data. 66,000. So....

290,000
-66,000
----------
230,000

Still not a bad number.

The biggest gain was 90,000 in the public sector, dominated by 66,000 temporary Census jobs, the BLS said. Among the other gains:
* Manufacturing +44,000
* Construction +14,000
* Professional and business services +80,000
* Temporary help services +26,000
* Services to buildings and dwellings + 23,000
* Computer systems design +7,000
* Health care +20,000
* Leisure and hospitality +45,00

www.bls.gov...

Look, let's be honest. It kills you people when numbers start looking up. It's Obama's Katrina when an oil rig blows up, when he has no dog in that race, but when some of his policies do improve something it's
liberal media,
friends in Obama's back pocket,
propaganda from the regime
created by Obama and Friends and they used fuzzy math
just a pretty graph made in Excel
Cass Sustein
Acorn

I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a credible source with hard data. I am truly sorry because you really gave it a good go, but your excuses fall way short. Thanks for playing, and we'll see you next month when there is another jobs gain.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip


I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a credible source with hard data.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but may I ask why? I mean, I can't think of any government agency that I trust implicitly. The federal government has been known to lie to us on matters great and small whenever it suited them. Remember how much documentation they produced to "prove" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? I especially find it hard to believe them when they seem to be saying one thing, and my eyes and ears seem to be observing something different.

I've seen maps that indicate that my area hasn't been hit as hard as most of the country, but I can see people struggling. I know people that are just barely making it, if that. I see the "For Sale" signs on homes that don't go away. I hear about how it is so much worse in other parts of the country. That chart may show improvement, but nothing else I've personally seen shows improvement. I'll believe it when I see it on the street.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Yea she is smokin! Funny thing, I had a different chick with a shotgun when I first signed up and the mods said it was too much. So I changed to this little honey.

More jobs might be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency.
www.nationaljournal.com...




top topics



 
1

log in

join