Please see #151 for further clarity if it is needed.
You don't attempt to answer that question. In fact, you don't attempt even to address anything I said --- that's hardly a discussion, isn't it?
What you reply with is:
OOPs guess I’m not the only one that isn’t buying the State Propaganda: http://www.cnbc.com/id/41911006.
The only correct word in your post is "OOPs."
Firstly, you refer to remarks of Rick Santelli at CNBC. This is a form of logical fallacy so old and so well known that it has its own name appeal to authority. You therefore put your foot in your mouth every time you try to do that. You can, of course, cite sources and refer to what other people have said. To avoid the fallacy, however, you must state what specifically make those people correct. Without saying what makes Santelli's words correct, your "argument" is fallacious.
Secondly and no less importantly, Santelli's article which you bring up to support your argument speaks actually against you. Nowhere does Santelli say that he does not believe the statistics, let alone that the government manipulates those statistics. He merely says that there is more than one measure of unemployment and explains two of them (indeed, there are at least six; they all are reported to the public, and you can see them even on this thread). Having explained what those two measures are and the difference between them, Santelli then urges us to continue following both, because the difference between them is informative (of course it is: that is why they are all published). No offense intended, but you've planted the second foot in your mouth -- "oops!"
This looks more like a game, Marty, rather than a discussion. There is no evidence in your posts that spend even a minute thinking about what I said. There is no evidence that you even read Santelli's article and reacted only to its tone (which you incorrectly felt to be damning). Out of respect to you, I wasted my time reading it, however.
I am not interested in "winning" some games, Marty. Since that is what you appear to pursue here --- OK, be my guest: you win.
Have a good day.
Obviously you are more interested in protecting your little taxpayer funded paycheeck than dealing with the reality of the situation.
But as the budget cuts continue, maybe one day you will decide to take a critical look at your activities and begin to tell the truth.
When millions of AMERICANS are without ue benes and struggling to feed their families (something that Government employees don’t understand), your defense of the system that at best misleads the public is unconsionable.