Quick Clip
Print

Fox's Bolling Promotes The "Conspiracy" That The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Is "Becoming A Partisan Department"

April 19, 2012 10:47 am ET

From the April 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Still Wrong: Right-Wing Media Continue To Dismiss Jobs Report With Discredited Attack

Conservative Media Promote Deceptive Unemployment Talking Point

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bintx (April 19, 2012 10:58 am ET)
      11 3
      These people aren't even worth a comment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (April 19, 2012 11:48 am ET)
        13  
        And yet... There's your comment!

        HA!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (April 19, 2012 12:54 pm ET)
          6 3
          Not really. I could have thought of something quite scathing. Not worth the time or effort.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 19, 2012 2:27 pm ET)
        6  
        didn't Romney just use statistics FROM THAT OFFICE to claim 92% of women lost jobs during the Obama administration ( observation-that is a lie, pure and simple, by an adult no less )
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (April 19, 2012 3:51 pm ET)
          4  
          Well, you see, when that office sticks to the facts, they're being partisan.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by hoopvillain (April 19, 2012 2:39 pm ET)
        6 1
        The funny thing is the logo: "Fox News", this isnt news, they are faux nooze, the Comedy Channel's best competition.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (April 19, 2012 8:24 pm ET)
        1  
        The WORST thing that could happen to the folks at FOX (and more importantly for the people for whom they carry water) would be a sustainable economic recovery. At any sign of such, they'll say the books are cooked or it's not real or whatever the bosses tell them to say.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bongo Fury (April 19, 2012 10:58 am ET)
      9  
      All govt. departments are "partisan" to what they represent.
      Bawling is Captain Obvious with an extreme right wing bent.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Saturnalian (April 19, 2012 1:16 pm ET)
        6  
        He hates how the Repugs evil plans to deny Amurikins jobs is failing. Now they have to go with plan B: hoping that a terrorist attack happens before the election.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 11:00 am ET)
      13 1
      I know one of the economists of the Department of Labor. He's a thoroughly in the tank Reaganomics guy. Most of the Civil Servants that I know are Republicans. And some of them are TeaCons who gripe about their tax burden while collecting a Government paycheck!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (April 19, 2012 12:23 pm ET)
        9 1
        Oh the humanity!
        It's indeed surprising how many government workers actually vote for Republicans who want to cut their pay, benefits, pensions and jobs. And union members who do the same thing.

        When they're asked about it, they always jump to an emotional wedge issue.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 12:39 pm ET)
          12  
          Last summer, I was in a discussion with a Marine Major, he said we needed to cut Government spending by 50%, so I asked him, "So, which would you prefer, to lose your job or take a 50% pay cut." He looked a little puzzled and said "Pay cut over losing my job, but that's not the point." "Well, you said we needed to cut the budget by 50%, so which is it?" Then he shook his head and said, "Look, I don't have time to talk about this now, why don't we wait until the class is over." Never got back to me.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (April 19, 2012 1:12 pm ET)
            12  
            This reminds me of a guy I work with now. He's former Army, former Special Forces, was in Vietnam, and a few things after it. Had been wounded, has some partial disability due to his wounds. He's bled for the country. A lot.

            He gripes every single day about how the Government spends too much money on this. Too much money on that. Thing is. He's been employed by the Government his ENTIRE LIFE. He's done nothing else. He's never worked in the private sector. He was in the Army. After he retired. He went to work for the Army as a contractor.

            I just have to shake my head and walk away.

            PS: His medical care is also free. He pays not one dime.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tbone (April 19, 2012 1:44 pm ET)
              1 10
              Sorry, but notwithstanding his inadvertent self-immolation, career military and wounded/disabled veterans are just flat off the table for me. Agree with them or not. Agree with their/our particular war or not. When someone put their lives on the line to defend you and me that can never, ever be repayed in full.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 2:14 pm ET)
                13  
                So, having been wounded for my country means that I can say whatever and go unchallenged? Sorry, no. I have colleague who is disabled, she thinks that Government is too big and that it spends too much but she does everything she can to get every last computer program or tool or computer paid for on the Government dime. I have no problem with Government programs that aid the disabled, but I have a problem with people using a program that they would deny to others. To me, that is taking advantage of the system and being a hypocrit. You shouldn't complain about Government spending if all of your income comes from the Government, that is biting the hand that feeds you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tbone (April 19, 2012 3:12 pm ET)
                  1 9
                  If your colleague was disabled as part of her military service, then we should cover every reasonable expense required to acommodate her disability and her post service life, period.

                  So, having been wounded for my country means that I can say whatever and go unchallenged?

                  I was not suggesting you don't have a right to criticize. I suggesting you shouldn't and I'm saying that I won't. Whether or not I agree with their politics and even if I find them hypocritical, they offered the last full measure of devotion. They were willing to die, not for their benefit, but for yours and mine. There is no "advantage of the system" to take nor hand to bite. These are debts we OWE them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Conchobhar (April 19, 2012 3:56 pm ET)
                    9  
                    We don't owe them our silent acquiescence to statements that are just plain wrong, illogical or hypocritical, any more than we owe a crooked cop a pass because he might have shown physical courage on the job.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 4:23 pm ET)
                    7 1
                    No, my colleague was not disabled in service. She was born that way. I have no objection to programs that help out the disabled, I have no objection to programs that help out vets. But don't say that Government is wrong, too big, and irresponsible and then stick your hand out asking for something because it helps you but then complain that government should be cutting back. There is a lot of waste that goes on in running a government and serving people. One person's essential service is someone else's "fraud, waste, and abuse." And despite your noble claims, most of the service members that I have known are serving for "the warfighter", the guy or gal next to them. They aren't in it to be noble, they're there for a paycheck and keeping the other guy alive. War is a filthy, ugly business and we should not make romantic or noble.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tbone (April 19, 2012 5:37 pm ET)
                      1 9
                      Your post then had nothing to do with mine.

                      I was not advocating for unquestioning fealty to the DOD or its budgets, only to the benefits that accrue to our wounded warriors. Of course we should disincentivize war, of course we don't romanticize it. But don't conflate the war or the war machine with the warrior. You again say "stick your hand out" as if their benefit is somehow unearned. They earn every penny. It's got nothing to do with romanticism or nobility. It's the debt we owe once they choose to serve.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 10:13 pm ET)
                        1  
                        The average service member serves 14 years. The average Civil Servant serves 22 years. Most soldiers don't serve in combat zones and yet they get all the benefits of those who do and they lord it over the civilians who serve right next to them. I know two people from my civilian agency who are serving in Afghanistan at this moment. I spent ten years in Korea and I lived off base. Yes, service members sign up to serve, and some of them die in that service, but civilians also serve and we get none of the respect and few of the benefits.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tbone (April 19, 2012 10:43 pm ET)
                          1 1
                          I cannot judge your situation but I sense animosity. I am the son of a 40 yr Federal employee (scientist). He supported 2 wives and 5 kids and retired on an annuity that was enough for a very modest home with very few frills. I know two retired Colonels, one who served in Vietnam, one who served in Iraq. Both had periods in combat. 1 raised 4 kids and had 2 wives, one never married. Both retired in their 50s on full pensions and went on to second careers achieving what most would consider upper class retirement. I would consider qualifications and backgrounds to be similar (all undergrads). I respect what my father did just as much as I respect what they did. But my Dad was never in a situation where people were purposefully trying to kill him. They full well could have never made it out and thereby enjoyed none of what you consider inequitable gain. I don't begrudge them the living they earned. I know my Dad didn't either.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by raddave43 (April 19, 2012 11:35 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Of they were Colonels, then they weren't undergrads.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by epkklk851 (April 20, 2012 7:05 am ET)
                            2  
                            I spent ten years overseas and listened to countless change of command speeches that made sang all manner of praise for service members, their spouses and children but rarely ever remembered to mention the civilians. And I ran into at least one COL who took full personal credit for an award that he had absolutely NOTHING to do with, and he never bothered to even thank, let alone reward a single member of the team who made him look so good. I was also a teacher and was aware of rank pulling and animosity towards teachers from military parents. I don't have a problem with programs that assist veterans and the disabled. I think that's a good thing to do. What I object to is the carping hypocrisy that says "Taxation is slavery, do away with taxes!" but then they demand these programs for themselves but when other people are aided by other programs, they want those cancelled and they want government spending slashed. My father was a veteran of both WWII and Korea. My father-in-law hit the beaches at Normandy in the first wave and went on to fight in Korea and Viet Nam. They raised seven kids between them. My brother served in Desert Storm and my sister was Navy Reserves and served a tour in Kuwait. I support veterans programs, they are great, they do help, they aren't fraudulent. Any benefits were earned. But, I'm not going to be all misty-eyed over their "sacrifice" and think I owe them some "debt" for my freedom. The wars fought since 1960 were not to protect U.S. territory, and they didn't seem to result in any benefits to the populations of the countries destroyed by the wars we were waging. Service members did a job, they should be compensated for it, medical care is part of that. All I ask, if you serve, then respect that the Government might owe some services to other people and not complain about your taxes paying for their programs.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by raddave43 (April 20, 2012 1:53 am ET)
                      2  
                      Reminds me of a guy that works on post. A career Gov't employee, who had a bumper sticker on his truck that said "just say no to federal taxes." I asked him once would he be willing to give up his job, in order to not pay taxes. His response was "no, I only have two years to retirement."
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (April 20, 2012 1:49 am ET)
                    2  
                    Your post reminds me of a discussion that I was having with a co-worker today. She was arguing that any soldier in the Wounded Warrior Program that incurs a debt due to the U.S. should have that debt forgiven, even if it is a valid deb for receiving money they weren't entitled to. She said "we owed it to them." I reminded her that I was a retired soldier who bled more than a drop or two in defense of this country. And, that soldiers are taught from day one, they are ultimately responsible for their pay accounts. That if they receive something they weren't entitled to, knew it and didn't report it, that they were committing fraud. Even if they were wounded in combat. Her response was. Well they have a direct line to the Post Commander and didn't want to answer to the general why money was being collected on a Wounded Warrior. I asked her if she felt that way for all soldiers and she said " they haven't earned it." I asked her what if was a soldier who was wounded in combat but was no longer part of the Wounded Warrior Program and she just looked at me like I had a eye on my forehead.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (April 19, 2012 2:18 pm ET)
                8  
                I respect that sentiment, but there is plenty of waste in the Pentagon budget that could be cut without hurting the vets.

                Trouble is, the Troglodytes want the whole Defense Budget off the table, even though Bush's Excellent Adventures are responsible for about 4 Trillion of our Debt. Add the irresponsible Tax Cuts on top of that, and it's even worse.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (April 19, 2012 4:26 pm ET)
                  4  
                  I once heard Robert Gates(in the banquet hall) say that the U.S. had 11 carrier groups, more than the next six navies combined. And he wanted to make cuts to the Defense budget. When I mentioned this to a Navy wife while watching Fox in the hotel breakfast room. She got all offended and demanded to know why I was so angry and so nasty.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Quicksilver M.S (April 19, 2012 7:18 pm ET)
                2  
                " When someone put their lives on the line to defend you and me that can never, ever be repayed in full."

                I have and will always have a PROBLEM with that line and Logic.
                Tell me how ?
                VietNam ...put their lives on the line to defend Me ?
                Operation Uphold Democracy....put their lives on the line to defend Me ?
                Operation Desert Storm....put their lives on the line to defend Me ?
                Operation Enduring Freedom.....put their lives on the line to defend Me ?
                Operation Iraqi Freedom.....put their lives on the line to defend Me ?

                Look up all of the other places in the last 50 years that someone .. Put their lives on the line to Defend ME !...

                If America is Attacked .. then I can HONOR them for .. "put their lives on the line to defend Me ! "
                Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (April 19, 2012 11:03 am ET)
      12  
      Of course, the GSA is partisan...what do you expect from a Marxist, Kenyan President, without a birth certificate, who is purposely destroying America; and creating a race/class war so that he can declare Martial Law, cancel the elections and install himself as dictator for life. What do you expect...?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (April 19, 2012 12:03 pm ET)
        9  
        I would at least expect him to say 'please' before he carries out his dastardly plans.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ud106c (April 19, 2012 11:05 am ET)
      15  
      Of all the ridiculous claims made by the right-wing media, claims about how the various unemployment statistics are calculated are my favorite.

      They parrot claims about how the "real" unemployment rate is higher by comparing the current U6 rate to the U3 rate from Bush's term.

      They claim stay-at-home moms by choice should be counted in the ranks of the unemployed.

      Thy claim from unemployed are no longer counted if they "run out of benefits". This one is my favorite, since they pulled this one out of thin air.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by notsure5 (April 20, 2012 5:13 pm ET)
           
        They claim stay-at-home moms by choice should be counted in the ranks of the unemployed.

        Yet they vigorously defend them when someone says they don't work.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by BDA (April 19, 2012 11:06 am ET)
      10  
      And if he could Bolling would include all the children 11 and up who aren't working, as well as the recently retired, the recently disabled, and those in mental institutions.... Anything to push the unemployed numbers up to make Obama look bad.

      It is just killing the jerks on the right who are willing to do or say anything to make the President look bad. Each and every indicator of economic growth has been improving, albeit not as fast as anyone wanted. So if you cant disprove the data, discredit the messenger. If an economist calls for tax increases, he is a Harvard elitist. If a congressman calls for tax increases, he is a communist. If you criticize the GOP, you aren't patriotic. If you fail to mention, nor initiate gun control legislation, you plan on seizing everyones gun except the blahs and you plan on killing Ted Nugent.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ud106c (April 19, 2012 11:16 am ET)
        8  
        If you fail to mention, nor initiate gun control legislation, you plan on seizing everyones gun except the blahs and you plan on killing Ted Nugent.

        Heck, even if you pass legislation allowing people to carry concealed weapons on public transportation, you plan on seizing everybody's guns.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by liberalXtian (April 19, 2012 2:03 pm ET)
        4  
        ...and those in mental institutions....


        I believe that Fox News employees are paid and would not count on the unemployment numbers.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (April 19, 2012 11:39 am ET)
      9  
      The right wing media doesn't like the fact that the economy and the employment picture are improving so they have to create a conspiracy theory to cast doubt on it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (April 19, 2012 11:41 am ET)
      11  
      This is just more of Fox starting with a pre-concieved notion and shaping the argument to support that notion. There is no "News" at Fox "News"!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (April 19, 2012 11:58 am ET)
        11  
        That is also the MO of conservative media superstar James O'Keefe. They don't investigate, they start with their conclusion, and then build things up around it to try and support the conclusion that they want.

        Which, by the way, I'm not a journalist, but, they're doing it wrong.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (April 19, 2012 11:47 am ET)
      10  
      Of course, they only say this, because it is putting out statistics that are beneficial to the Obama administration, as in, the economy is improving and unemployment is going down.

      So, of course, it's a partisan department. How can they not be?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (April 19, 2012 11:57 am ET)
        9  
        It's funny that everyone in the media (not just Fox) seems to have forgotten that the Bush admin actually did politicize much of the civil service.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cakesphere (April 19, 2012 12:04 pm ET)
        8  
        Reality has a liberal bias!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 19, 2012 12:31 pm ET)
        10 1
        It's just another facet of their bigger narrative about the media. If they see positive coverage of a Democrat, and negative reporting on a Repub, they consider it biased, regardless of any other factors, or facts.

        I've compared it to my local sportscasts which, most years, does a lot more positive reporting on the Lakers than the Clippers. It's not bias, it's just reality.

        One of the funnier themes going on at right wing blogs right now is comparing coverage of Mittens strapping his dog to his car roof and the president eating dog as a boy.

        The Seamus incident has been mostly a comic relief item, noted by Romney's former Republican opponents, and mainly as a commentary on his... well, he's just weird.

        I'm also amused by the righty blogs hatred of Jon Stewart, who they consider a leftists and Obama operative. The Daily Show takes a lot of effective jabs at Democrats ( right wing so-called comedians could take notes), but he bases them on reality.

        Does Stewart ( who seems to be generally pretty liberal) get in more digs at right wingers? That seems pretty true. Is it because of bias or an agenda? Maybe, but he's a comedian, he's going to focus on lies, hypocrisy and absurdity, so naturally he has a lot more material from the right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (April 19, 2012 1:16 pm ET)
          10  
          Agreed.

          Romney strapping the family dog to the roof of the car seems to me to be rather repugnant, but it doesn't factor into whether or not I'd vote for him.

          Stewart does take a lot of digs are democrats. The conservatives, who probably never watch his show, are certain that he's only flaying republicans. Although while being easier, democrats prop up some easy targets for him. Such as, the entire Congressman Weiner thing. He and Stewart used to be roommates. Did that stop him? No. Way. It was too good to leave alone.

          Republicans in our country have taken leave of these senses for the most part, and deny what is right in front of their faces. Just look at how they talk about Obama. Socialist. Marxist. Hates America. And so on. If they actually looked at the facts of what he's done, they'd probably agree with about, I'd say, 80-85% of what he's done.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 19, 2012 1:53 pm ET)
            6 1
            Wingnuts do stick to their guidelines-

            100% hate and lies about Dems, and defending Repoops = fair

            Less than that 100% = liberal.

            I saw a Breitbart item this morning, taking digs at Chelsea Clinton in her role as a TV reporter. Their source for a critical quote of her was described ( I think I'm quoting it exactly) as "from the Clinton-outlet Washington Post, no less".

            That is a pretty alarming degree of detachment from reality.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (April 19, 2012 2:29 pm ET)
              6  
              While I appreciate your work over there, Andy, I hope you're taking immune support supplements and lots of showers after.

              The only two times I've visited that site was following one of your links to see what you said. Great as usual but it bounces off most of 'em, it appears.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 19, 2012 2:39 pm ET)
                6 1
                I know most people don't even like exposing themselves to the insanity, but I have a pretty strong constitution, and a warped sense of humor.

                BTW-1 after 909 - to you and yours, and everybody else here - our crazy little friend donutluvver says he loves and misses everybody here, and will try to log on again once his therapist has done some work on his emotional outbursts and perverted propositions.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Conchobhar (April 19, 2012 4:03 pm ET)
                  2  
                  OT Andy, but do you post under another handle on other sites/blogs? There's a whinger on NiceGuyEddie's site who keeps calling a liberal he's trashing, "Andy," though that's not the name the fellow (who roundly thrashes said whinger) uses.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 19, 2012 4:20 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    I've visited NGE's blog, don't recall ever posting there. I'll have to take a look, maybe it's one of my wingnut fans thinking it's me.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Conchobhar (April 19, 2012 4:54 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Click on I'll make this easy.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 19, 2012 6:08 pm ET)
                        5 1
                        Haha, Wow, I just skimmed through, couldn't take much of Billy the Brick's word parsing and fantasy victory dances,

                        I didn't see a reference to 'Andy' until way down here.

                        It's possible he thinks Brab is me, but from reading a few of William's other posts, I might just chalk it up to general confusion.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Conchobhar (April 20, 2012 10:02 am ET)
                          1  
                          Well, he claims to have had a hard time being accepted here, and then to have been banned, so I thought you and he might have gotten into it. I can't think of a recent poster here who had quite his style, though I know he's familiar enough with MMFA to hate us as much as The Hive does. His very first post on NGE's site referenced us as a lock-step hate group.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Andy Kreiss (April 20, 2012 3:41 pm ET)
                               
                            I don't recognize the style as any of my wingnut friends. Sort of a stupider Galileonardo or a smarter ilovedoughnuts. Maybe in the ProudCon/mmfvl range.
                            Report Abuse
    • Author by CAL (April 19, 2012 12:05 pm ET)
      8  
      FOXPAC needs to be re-branded by the intelligent, rational majority of our society with titles more befitting of the sewage they feed their gullible audience.

      The FOX treasonous propanda channel
      The FOX pander to bigots channel
      The FOX kiss the derriere of the rich channel
      The FOX club of non-patriot traitors channel

      The should be called anything but "news" and it's long overdue this cancerous tumor on the "news" media be marginalized aggressively in every way possible.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 19, 2012 12:19 pm ET)
      8  
      LEVEL THREE!

      ------------------------------
      IMHO
      UTOPIA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (April 19, 2012 1:59 pm ET)
      7  
      Of course they're partisan. Facts have a well-known liberal bias.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (April 19, 2012 2:14 pm ET)
      3  
      It's not only that. It's becoming clear that the economy is improving due to a partisan conspiracy, and that immediately after the election, Obama will ruin it on purpose.

      Right, Bolling? I mean, you gotta have something, don't you?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (April 19, 2012 2:22 pm ET)
        4  
        I heard this morning that Oil Futures are down, which usually means a drop in gas prices to follow. Will the FOXtards accuse the Oil Companies of being Partisan Democrats?

        It's difficult being a FOX/Hate Radio pundit. They juggle so many lies at once that they must be under a lot of stress.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (April 19, 2012 4:04 pm ET)
        3  
        The improving economy IS part of a partisan conspiracy, it's just not hidden -- the Democrats have been fighting to make it better for everyone and the Republicans are trying to make billionaires even richer no matter what damage it does to everyone else. That's partisan.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by notsure5 (April 20, 2012 5:24 pm ET)
           
        Sadly I could see something like that happening. Romney gets elected, and pushes through some insane bit of legislation that causes the economy to crumble. They will then take the position that it was all started by Obama and their legislation didn't work because they didn't get their legislation in place soon enough, then use that as a reason to push through something even worse.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (April 19, 2012 10:20 pm ET)
      2  
      eric, check your pants there probably full.i believe when OBAMA wins in november heads & short skirts will roll out the door at fixed spnews.. kk-klannity don't let the door hit you in the a*s on your way out. ROGER WILL WAKE UP & SAVE ALL THAT CASH!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by factsovercrap26 (April 20, 2012 5:00 pm ET)
         
      How many people wanna bet that god forbid Romney get elected come November that Fox will be reporting those job numbers as absolute fact and it will all be due to Romney's amazing leadership and everyday we will hear about how much the economy is improving. And Im talking from DAY ONE of him being in office!
      Report Abuse