Re: Jason and the Whales

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>> > In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
>> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jason wrote:
>> >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>,
>> >>> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if
>> >>>>> GIGO data was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment
>> >>>>> figure? I do.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Because you love WASTING money.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
>> >>
>> >> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
>> >
>> > I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that
>> > crimes were committed--so an investigation should be done.
>>
>> Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
>> suggesting.
>
> A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based
> on GIGO data.


Is that the same member of Congress who believes
women cannot get pregnant from a "legitimate" rape?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-7BAEAE...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-AC10F4...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <Jason-09101...@67-150-124-56.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-9CD856...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-72739A...@news.giganews.com>,
> Jeanne
> > > > > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > <Jason-08101...@66-53-209-90.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <hlwdjsd2-DFF88D...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > Jeanne
> > > > > > > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <Jason-08101...@66-53-220-193.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In article <kgHcs.4912$EP3...@newsfe07.iad>, Tom
> > > > > > > > > > > McDonald
> > > > > > > > > > > <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/8/2012 4:03 PM, Jason wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> <dfritzin-6AB23D...@news.eternal-september.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > <Jason-07101...@66-53-212-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> If that is true, how come the other economic
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> experts
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> did
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> come
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> up
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a figure that was that low?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Why don't you learn a bit about how these numbers
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> derived
> > > > > > > > > before you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> make your insane accusations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> You are unbelievable. Always to believe even the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> most
> > > > > ridiculous
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> claim
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> if it makes Obama look bad, but not willing to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> believe
> > > > > anything,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> matter how much evidence backs it up, if it makes
> > > Obama look
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Now, why don't you provide the name of the
> Democrat who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> cooked
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> books, thereby breaking federal law. If you can't,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> shut up. Remember, it is better to be quiet and have
> > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> may be an idiot than to open your mouth and prove
> > > beyond all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> doubt
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> you are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I did read an article about that subject in the local
> > > > > newspaper.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > said
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that one of the numbers was based on calls to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > homes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > thousands
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people. I thought of a way that a loyal democrat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > manipulate
> > > > > > > > > what he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > learned from those phone calls to homes. Let's say
> > > that I was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > loyal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > democrat. For example, if I called a home and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone
> > > > > that lived
> > > > > > > > > in that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > home was unemployed, I would NOT record on any
> > > document what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > learned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from that phone call. The next call was made to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > home and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out that the home owner had a full time job and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > wife had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time job. I would fill out the chart and include
> > > > > everything that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > learned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from the phone call. At the end up the day--guess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what--it
> > > > > > > would show
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the vast majority of people that I called had jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > garbage in--garbage out GIGO. If dozens of other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > loyal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > democrats
> > > > > > > > > done the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same thing that day--guess what--the home survey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > results
> > > > > > > reflected a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lower
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unemployment rate than it would have been if the home
> > > survey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > done the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way it is suppose to be done. I doubt that you
> understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > said in this paragraph.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Did the above things happen? I hope not. However, it
> > > may have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > happened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So you think that career civil servants, who have
> > > > > > > > > > > > served
> > > > > > > Democratic and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican governments for years, would jeopardize
> > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > careers
> > > > > > > > > > > > *one
> > > > > > > > > > > > time* just to make Obama look good before an election?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose it could happen. It could also happen that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > moon could
> > > > > > > > > > > > crash down on your home tomorrow morning.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I mean, in your world, anything is possible, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > far-fetched
> > > > > > > > > > > > scenario is as likely as the most reliable facts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I believe they would do it if they knew that it
> would be
> > > > > > > > > > > unlikely
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > them to ever get caught. We both know that huge companies
> > > such as
> > > > > > > Walmart
> > > > > > > > > > > have to have hundreds of cameras in every
> > > > > > > > > > > store---watching
> > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > customers and their thousands of workers. Each year,
> > > hundreds of
> > > > > > > > > > > workers
> > > > > > > > > > > in those types of stores are fired for stealing things. I
> > > > > > > > > > > seen a
> > > > > > > > > > > television show that showed the recorded videos of
> employees
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > various
> > > > > > > > > > > stores stealing things--they must not have noticed the
> > > > > > > > > > > cameras
> > > > > > > > > > > located
> > > > > > > > > > > directly above them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not talking about Walmart. We're not talking about
> > > crimes for
> > > > > > > > > > which there is evidence. We're talking about your accusing
> > > federal
> > > > > > > > > > workers of a federal crime with no evidence. That is called
> > > > > > > > > > libel
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > slander.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We now have some evidence--at least two BLS employees have
> > > > > > > > > admitted
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > they donated money to Obama's campaign. That is the kind of
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > that could cause an investigation to be conducted. Perhaps
> > > there are
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > BLS employees that have donated money to Obama's campaign.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why would contributing to Obama's campaign be evidence of
> ANYthing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would take dozens, probably hundreds, of federal employees
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > cook
> > > > > > > > the books the way you're claiming.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So your latest libel is even more ridiculous than the previous
> > > > > > > > ones.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's evidence that they are loyal democrats. Several posters
> told me
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > least implied that the BLS workers were not political.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So something they do in their private lives proves that they commit
> > > > > > crimes at work?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if they done anything like that. That is the reason an
> > > > > investigation should be done. They can find out if liberal democrat
> > > > > employees used GIGO data to come up with a 7.8% unemployment rate.
> > > >
> > > > You have yet to explain how the Republican employees allowed that to be
> > > > done.
> > >
> > > They allowed it to happen since they were friends of the liberal
> > > democrats--I am guessing.
> >
> > Now, you are going from ridiculous to insane. Think about the idiocy you
> > just wrote. Why would the Republicans allow the Democrats to get away
> > with it? Why shouldn't I believe that the high unemployment numbers of
> > the past couple of years was a result of Republicans manipulating the
> > data? After all, Republicans controlled the executive branch for 8 years
> > before Obama became president, and oddly enough, as you pointed out, the
> > unemployment numbers only got bad when Obama became president.
> > Therefore, according to your "connect the dots" theory, Republicans have
> > been making the jobs reports look bad during the Obama administration to
> > make Democrats look bad.
> >
> > Makes as much sense as your idiocy.
>
> It makes sense to me. Many of my fellow employees were liberal democrats
> and I was close friends with them. I was a conservative republican. We
> used the term "I got your back"--which means we supported each other.

Would you have gone to federal prison for any of them?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-B390FB...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-10101...@67-150-121-215.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-EF5545...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article

> > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-3B513C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article

> > > > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-064DB4...@news.giganews.com>,

> > > > > > > told me e

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > least implied that the BLS workers were not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > political.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So something they do in their private lives proves that
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > crimes at work?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if they done anything like that. That is the
> > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > investigation should be done. They can find out if
> > > > > > > > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > > > democrat
> > > > > > > > > > > employees used GIGO data to come up with a 7.8%
> unemployment
> > > > > > > > > > > rate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You have yet to explain how the Republican employees
> > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > that to be
> > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They allowed it to happen since they were friends of the
> > > > > > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > > > democrats--I am guessing.
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So now you have to explain why they would be happy to join
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > friends
> > > > > > > > in federal prison.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They did not believe they would ever get caught if they hung
> together
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > glue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So now you're calling them stupid again.
> > > > >
> > > > > No--just fellow BLS employees hanging together like glue.
> > > >
> > > > Who would just love to hand together in federal prison.
> > > >
> > > > Stop digging.
> > > >
> > > > You're 3/4 of the way to China now.
> > >
> > > Do you believe that only about a dozen people have the same point of view
> > > on this subject as I do?
> > >
> > > If so, you are wrong.
> > >
> > > I have heard several different conservative radio talk show hosts express
> > > the same point of view and of course many of their millions of listeners
> > > agree with the talk show hosts.
> > >
> > > Glenn Beck claimed on his website that this is the October surprise.
> >
> > Jason, it is clear you are wrong. After all, many of the employees at
> > the BLS would have been hired during the Bush administration, meaning
> > they just have to be Republicans. Now, the unemployment numbers only got
> > bad after Obama became president (as you love to point out). So, connect
> > the dots! Republicans in the BLS purposely made the unemployment numbers
> > look bad until September. Then, in September, there was a coup by the
> > Democrats, and the numbers started back to where they should be. It is
> > obvious! Just connect the dots!
> >
> > Sarcasm off...
>
> OK--do you you agree that an investigation needs to be done?

He just told you absolutely not, so why are you asking again?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> > > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > >>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if GIGO
> > >>>>> data
> > >>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> > >>
> > >> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> > >
> > > I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that crimes
> > > were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >
> > Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
> > suggesting.
>
> A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based on
> GIGO data.

He believes NOTHING of the sort. He's just grabbing another excuse to
stop doing the work he's supposed to be doing and try to make the
President look bad.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <uuods.23356$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article <L0ods.36381$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jason wrote:
> > >>> In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Alex W. wrote:

> > >>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > >>>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>

> > >>>>>>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at
> this point.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you
> want an
> > >>>>>>> investigation to be done?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative,
> > >>>>>> paranoid
> > >>>>>> idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go
> broke, but
> > >>>>>> you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It isn't just a waste of money. It's the tip of the iceberg.
> > >>>> Essentially, what Jason is proposing is that *every* decision, *every*
> > >>>> report from the federal government should be thoroughly investigated
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> ensure its accuracy (or to put it another way, to ensure that it
> > >>>> wasn't
> > >>>> created by idiots) simply on the basis that someone doesn't like it. I
> > >>>> thought Republicans were supposed to be for small government, but
> > >>>> Jason
> > >>>> is proposing huge government.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ah, wait... I see it now. This must be Jason's plan for creating jobs!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> It's worse than that because any findings by any such
> > >>>>> investigation that does not fit the preconceived outcome will
> > >>>>> automatically be disbelieved.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> True. The investigative team would likely be stacked with Democrats.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's more complicated. The BLS has the reputation of producing accurate
> > >>> figures such as the unemployment rate. In order to make sure the agency
> > >>> has not been corrupted by political considerations--an investigation
> > >>> needs
> > >>> to be done. If an investigation is not done--it means that any future
> > >>> unemployment rates will not be trusted as being true figures.
> > >>
> > >> Your proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason. Fortunately, the
> > >> rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the Dark Ages.
> > >
> > > An investigation could also clear the BLS of any wrong doing.
> >
> > You should be investigated for murder, Jason. Such an investigation
> > would clear you of any wrong doing.
>
> If Joseph McCarthy was still around--he could make an excellent case
> against Obama.

Thank you for admitting that this conspiracy theory is nothing but an
evil witch hunt.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >

> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > >
> > > Obama is a socialist.
> >
> > That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
>
> OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.

So what?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <eZnds.36379$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article
> > >> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > >>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>>> Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > >>>
> > >>> Obama is a socialist.
> > >>
> > >> That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > >> socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > >> However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > >> out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
> > >
> > > OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
> >

> > Do you know what you're doing, Jason? You're throwing shit at a wall,
> > hoping some of it will stick. You're doing it so obviously that it's
> > difficult to take you seriously.
>
> but it's a fact that his mentor in college was a Marist professor. I bet
> you that he will not mention that fact in the future debates with Romney.

Because it's completely irrelevant to anything.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <XnsA0E850C7176E5...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

> Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > news:Jason-10101...@67-150-121-215.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > That is not always true. They have lots of ads in the Sunday
> > > newspaper. Companies like Sears, K-Mart and Walmart have teenage
> > > female models and adult female models wearing the clothing that is for
> > > sale in their stores. Those women are beautiful and are not
> > > unhealthy-looking anorexics.
> > >
> > > Chelsea Clinton (when she was a teenage girl) did not look anything
> > > like those teenage models.
> >
> >
> > Neither did Bush's daughters, but I don't recall anyone
> > slamming them over their appearance.
> >
> > Heck, even when they were ARRESTED the media pretty much
> > left them alone. Can you imagine the rightwing shitstorm
> > if that happened in a Democratic family?
>
> The liberal news media done a poor job of covering the story of Clinton
> losing a lawsuit against a woman that he tried to coerse into having sex
> with him. I found out the information from Fox News. The story was not
> covered in the local liberal newspaper.

Because it was meaningless and unimportant.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-A9197D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-138471...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article

> > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article

> > > > > <dfritzin-9C8AC6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > You have been called on this lie before. Stop lying, Jason.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a fact that the national debt when Obama took office was 10.6
> > > > > trillion dollars and that it is now over 16 trillion dollars. Did
> > > > > Obama
> > > > > claim during his first campaign that he planned to cut the national
> > > > > debt
> > > > > in half?
> > > >
> > > > You have been told the reasons, with supporting data, that says most of
> > > > the debt is a result of Bush policies. Yet, you still spout the same
> > > > lies. Why must you lie all the time? Is that all you have?
> > >
> > > You failed to answer the above question--try again.
> >
> > The answer is no, he didn't. Try getting some accurate information for a
> > change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I admit that Bush2 was responsible for some of that spending.
> >
> > Some, as in ~80%
>
> http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-should-have-brought-pencil.html

What does that blog post, not even an official opinion piece, have to do
with anything?

[Caranx latus]

Jason's a creationist. Creationists tend to have difficulty
understanding sarcasm. Also word play of any sort and most forms of humor.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <dfritzin-A9197D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article

> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <dfritzin-138471...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article

> > > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article

> <dfritzin-9C8AC6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > > > You have been called on this lie before. Stop lying, Jason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a fact that the national debt when Obama took office was 10.6
> > > > > > trillion dollars and that it is now over 16 trillion dollars.
> Did Obama
> > > > > > claim during his first campaign that he planned to cut the
> national debt
> > > > > > in half?
> > > > >
> > > > > You have been told the reasons, with supporting data, that says most
> > > > > of
> > > > > the debt is a result of Bush policies. Yet, you still spout the same
> > > > > lies. Why must you lie all the time? Is that all you have?
> > > >
> > > > You failed to answer the above question--try again.
> > >
> > > The answer is no, he didn't. Try getting some accurate information for a
> > > change.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I admit that Bush2 was responsible for some of that spending.
> > >
> > > Some, as in ~80%
> >
> > http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-should-have-brought-pencil.html
>

> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

And why are you bringing up this idiocy again? What does it have to do
with the discussion?

And I thought you claimed to no longer be a birther, so why are you
posting this article since it PROVES that you still are a birther?

[Mitchell Holman]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:hlwdjsd2-D867AE...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu:

Jason is also wrong.

The Paula Jones case made the covers of
Time, Newsweek, People and scores of other
"liberal media" magazines. It was even the
source of the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Which Jason will be telling us was also
ignored by every outlet except Fox News.....

[Jason]

In article <Tzods.23359$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <1iods.66692$VZ3....@fed16.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <1h5xmp23yzsm$.f2t3kf582784$.d...@40tude.net>,
> >>> ing...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:59:15 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article

> >>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> >>>>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if
> >>> GIGO data
> >>>>>>>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that
crimes

> >>>>>> were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You cannot start an investigation without some kind of evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure you can.
> >>>> The technical term is "witch hunt".
> >>>
> >>> I would call it an internal investigation.
> >>
> >> Like the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations?
> >
> > If there is such a committee--let them do it.
>
> They already did it, Jason. Perhaps you've heard of McCarthyism?

Do they still have such a committee?

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-D867AE...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

It may have been the first time in the history of America that a president
or former president lost a lawsuit related to sexual harrassment.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E8DF9F27A98...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

And I played a small role in that case by donating money to the law firm
that won that case--the name of that law firm is the Rutherford Institute.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-297860...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > > >
> > > > Obama is a socialist.
> > >
> > > That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > > socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > > However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > > out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
> >
> > OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
>
> So what?

It indicated to me that when Obama was in college that he was a fan of
Marxism. I do not mean by that comment that he was a fan of Groucho Marx
or wore Groucho Marx glasses when he was in college.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-FE7BB6...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

Neither is Big Bird but it came up in the first debate.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-F2CB3E...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

Good question--to be honest--NO.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-2C203D...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

I just wanted to be sure.

[Jason]

In article <7Xods.46372$Sk6....@fed08.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <VWnds.36378$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <dfritzin-70AF0A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>> Tell me? Did Limbaugh take a leave of absence after calling Sandra Fluke
> >>>> a slut? How about after he said she should take videos of her having sex
> >>>> and put them on the internet? No? I guess that makes him much less of a
> >>>> man than Ed Shultz.
> >>>
> >>> We were discussing Ed Schultz--not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh did say he
> >>> was sorry for saying that Clinton's daughter looked like a dog but I don't
> >>> know if he said he was sorry for calling Sandra Flunk a slut.
> >>>
> >>> It's my opinion that Shultz sends out hate vibes when discussing
> >>> conservatives that he has no respect for.
> >>
> >> You're blaming your perception of him being hateful on him? Have you
> >> considered that you might be manufacturing the hate vibe yourself and
> >> simply attributing it to him?
> >
> > no--watch him yourself for a week and see if you notice a change in his
> > speech patterns and body language when discussing conservatives that he
> > has no respect for.
>
> I don't watch TV. I don't own a TV.
>
> In any case, changes in speech patterns or body language are not
> necessarily indicative of a "hate vibe". Since you have nothing else, I
> doubt there is anything more that you need to say on the subject that
> you haven't already said.

If you have never seen Ed Schultz's television show--you have not missed
anything. You are better off than I am since when I seen him bad mouthing
a conservative woman that I respected, it caused me to develop nausea.

[Jason]

In article <%5pds.11226$zI3....@newsfe18.iad>, Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fox Noise has made a sort of cottage industry in analyzing body language
> of people on video. They use it as a launching pad for interpretations
> of underlying motivations of people who say things that don't further
> the Fox agenda.
>
> IOW, if the facts don't support your prejudices, invent a 'scientific'
> way of re-working the facts to make them more congenial to you.

You are correct. About once a week, O'Reilly has a body language expert
that analyzes various people's body languages when they are speaking in
public. I have learned a lot from her. I can now analyse quite a bit from
people's body language. For example, when Obama looked down when Romney
was talking indicated that he was trying hard to ignore or strongly
disagree with what he was hearing from Romney.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-B7303E...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

It provides you with another point of view.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-49088D...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

Only because it helped me realize the reason that one of Mrs. Clinton's
supporters honestly believed that Obama was born in Kenya. She probably
had a copy of the Obama pamphlet mentioned in the website mentioned above.


One website indicated Obama was the very first birther.

Read this:


Results 1 - 10 of about 13,600 for "Obama was the first birther".

The PJ Tatler » Madness? Or Desperation? Dem Hysteria Over ...
Aug 24, 2012 ... Don't forget that Obama was the first birther, having
claimed in the promotional
materials for his first book that he was born in Kenya. If Romney ...
pjmedia.com/.../madness-or-desperation-dem-hysteria-over-romney-birther-
joke/ - 103k - Cached - Similar pages

Original Birther, Obama, Responds To Romney Joke: America Doesn't
Aug 24, 2012... Ad Response To Romney Birther Joke: America Doesn't Need a
Birther-in-
Chief - VIDEO HERE. FLASHBACK: Obama was the first Birther!
obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/.../original-birther-obama-responds-
to.html - 96k - Cached - Similar pages


Romney goes THERE: 'Birther' joke raises conspiracy theory ­ CNN ...
Aug 24, 2012 ... It was only changed when Barry realized Kenyans could not
be POTUS. Barry
Obama was the first Birther. HA HA. Was he lying then or now.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/.../comment-page-45/ - 145k - Cached
- Similar pages

Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: "America doesn't need a ...
Aug 25, 2012... supplied to a book he was promoting and the publisher
included it in the
description of the book. In other words, Obama was the first "birther." ...
www.amazon.com/forum/politics?cdForum...cdPage=7... - 233k - Cached -
Similar pages

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
If you wanna get real technical, Obama was the first birther. He cant even
get his
own? lie straight on where he was born. fatheremmons85 3 months ago ...
www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=KCeaRf8--Fs - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

  Jake Tapper Mocks Trump's 'Bizarre' Birther Nonsense; GMA ...
#2 Obama was the first Birther. Jake should ask him. Submitted by frank14
on Wed, 05/30/2012 ...
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/05/30/jake-tapper-mocks-trumps-bizarre-birther-nonsense-abc-skipped-mahers

The Steady Drip: Trump: More Will Come Out About Legitimacy Of ...
Aug 27, 2012 ... FLASHBACK: Obama was the first Birther! Obama in 1991
stated in his own bio
he was born in Kenya. DETAILS HERE. WATCH SHERIFF ...
thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/.../trump-more-will-come-out-about.html - 111k
- Cached - Similar pages

[Jason]

In article <dUods.46371$Sk6....@fed08.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> >>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if
GIGO data
> >>>>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that crimes

> >>> were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >>
> >> Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
> >> suggesting.
> >
> > A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based on
> > GIGO data.
>

> Just one? What do the remaining 534 think?

I believe they were out of session when Jack Welch made his first
statement about this issue.

[Jason]

In article <bLods.4522$9_1....@fe07.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <Fpods.29823$0S6....@fed11.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <Vdfds.578$ey7...@fe33.iad>, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-1FAD32...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> >>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >>>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>,
Jeanne
> >>>>>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if
> >>>>> GIGO data
> >>>>>>>>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible
that crimes
> >>>>>>> were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> You cannot start an investigation without some kind of evidence.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> The evidence is that lots of people now believe the 7.8% unemployment
> >>>>> rate--including a member of Congress--believe the figure was based
on GIGO
> >>>>> data.
> >>>>
> >>>> That isn't evidence, Jason. Not even close. Without evidence, what
> >>>> you've described is at best speculation. At worst, it's mass hysteria.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The other evidence is that at least two employees have admitted
that they
> >>>>> donated money to Obama.
> >>>>
> >>>> That isn't evidence either. Again, not even close. Individuals are
> >>>> allowed to contribute to campaign funds. Their doing so does not
> >>>> automatically mean that they would commit fraud.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think that everyone is as dishonest as you would be if you were
> >>>> in their position?
> >>>>
> >>>>> More evidence may come out in the near future if an internal
investigation
> >>>>> is being conducted. I don't know if such an internal investigation is
> >>>>> under way. If I was in charge of that agency, I would have an internal
> >>>>> investigation under way.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, you wouldn't. You'd know why if you thought about it for a while.
> >>>
> >>> You know that the BLS employees that may have done the dirty deed are
> >>> praying and hoping that an investigation will not be done.
> >>
> >> Parsing that sentence out makes it very clear that you've already come
> >> to a judgment, even though no evidence has been presented. Due process
> >> means absolutely nothing to you, does it?
> >
> > Please notice that I used the word MAY in my above sentence. That means
> > they MAY not have done any dirty deed such as making use of GIGO data.
>
> You also talked about people praying and hoping. Last time I checked,
> nonexistent people don't do those things.

That's correct--if no BLS employees are guilty of doing the dirty
deed--there were be no praying or hoping.

[Jason]

In article
<hlwdjsd2-03D30B...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

Joseph McCarthy went after communists. He did not concern himself with
issues like unemployment rates.

[Jason]

In article <SSods.9641$nQ6....@newsfe15.iad>, Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/2012 7:47 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article <uvods.23357$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <z2ods.36383$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <8Veds.34040$eY6....@fed06.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-C12D09...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >>>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How did the Republican employees allow fake numbers to be used?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And if they did use fake numbers, why hasn't some Republican
employee
> >>>>>>>>>> released the correct numbers?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My guess is that they are friends with the workers that done
the dirty
> >>>>>>>>> deed and don't want to play a role in getting their friends fired.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So they're such good friends, they're willing to join them in federal
> >>>>>>>> prison?

> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at
this point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you
want an
> >>>>>>> investigation to be done?
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Are you proposing that Congress enact a law that calls for every result
> >>>>>> from the BLS to be investigated? Or just the ones you don't like?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just the most recent figure of 7.8% since important people like Jack
> >>>>> Welch--former CEO of GE and a member of Congress have questioned whether
> >>>>> or not the figure was based on GIGO data.
> >>>>
> >>>> And if the next one shows a drop as well, that'll need to be
> >>>> investigated by the Republicans presumably. If the rate rises, that'll
> >>>> need to be investigated as well but by the Democrats. You're proposing
> >>>> an increase in the size of government.
> >>>
> >>> NO--the investigators could be government workers that have degrees in
> >>> economics.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to people who already have other work to do?
> >
> > Or have nothing much to do in their current jobs.
> >
> Just because you were a lazy lay-about in your government job doesn't
> mean that real dedicated civil servants are as slovenly and lazy as you
> were.

But many government workers are lazy. It's a fact.

[Jason]

In article <CCods.23361$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <Iwods.23358$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <L6ods.34596$ab.2...@fed14.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <aTeds.34039$eY6....@fed06.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-B91105...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >>>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But what if GIGO data was used to come up with a 7.8%
> > unemployment rate?

> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How did the Republican employees allow fake numbers to be used?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And if they did use fake numbers, why hasn't some Republican employee
> >>>>>>>> released the correct numbers?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My guess is that they are friends with the workers that done the dirty
> >>>>>>> deed and don't want to play a role in getting their friends fired.
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers caught the Republican workers
> >>>>>> having sex with interns in BLS washrooms and are blackmailing them into
> >>>>>> silence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers have cut the hands off the
> >>>>>> Republican workers and cut their tongues out so they can't rat
them out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers have assassinated all of the
> >>>>>> Republican workers and are telling their spouses that they've been
> >>>>>> reassigned to a secret mission in a faraway country.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess is that the BLS doesn't have any workers at all. It only has a
> >>>>>> computer and it's a Democrat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyone else want to play?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK--do you agree that an investigation needs to be conducted? yes or no
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. The issue is that you don't like the latest numbers from the BLS.
> >>>> That isn't sufficient reason to launch an investigation.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you can't trust the results from the BLS now, what makes you think
> >>>> the results were *ever* trustworthy?
> >>>
> >>> I believe that future BLS unemployment numbers may not be considered to be
> >>> trustworthy unless an investigation clears them of any wrong doing.
> >>
> >> Evasion rejected.
> >>
> >> Repeating the question: If you can't trust the results from the BLS now,
> >> what makes you think the results were *ever* trustworthy?
> >
> > Interesting point--that sort of investigation would take lots of time. An
> > investigation over how the 7.8% figure was determined would take far less
> > time.
>
> Evasion rejected.
>
> Repeating the question *again*: If you can't trust the results from the
> BLS now, what makes you think the results were *ever* trustworthy?

Once the investigation related to 7.8% figure is finished--perhaps they
may want to explore the issue that you mentioned in your post.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 11, 3:32 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <Jason-1010121736230...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <Jason-1010121626170...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article <dfritzin-A9197D.10322510102...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <Jason-0910121534270...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <dfritzin-138471.16203309102...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <Jason-0910121116370...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> > > > > >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article

> > <dfritzin-9C8AC6.07381909102...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > You have been called on this lie before. Stop lying, Jason.
>
> > > > > > > It's a fact that the national debt when Obama took office was 10.6
> > > > > > > trillion dollars and that it is now over 16 trillion dollars.
> > Did Obama
> > > > > > > claim during his first campaign that he planned to cut the
> > national debt
> > > > > > > in half?
>
> > > > > > You have been told the reasons, with supporting data, that says most
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the debt is a result of Bush policies. Yet, you still spout the same
> > > > > > lies. Why must you lie all the time? Is that all you have?
>
> > > > > You failed to answer the above question--try again.
>
> > > > The answer is no, he didn't. Try getting some accurate information for a
> > > > change.
>
> > > > > Yes, I admit that Bush2 was responsible for some of that spending.
>
> > > > Some, as in ~80%
>

> > >http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-should-have-brought-pencil...
>
> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-...

>
> And why are you bringing up this idiocy again? What does it have to do
> with the discussion?
>
> And I thought you claimed to no longer be a birther, so why are you
> posting this article since it PROVES that you still are a birther?

I guess he thinks its fun to annoy people on here.

After all he has said he thinks posting on here is fun.

More fun in fact than reading a book.

[Alex W.]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:35:14 -0700, Jason wrote:

> In article <eZnds.36379$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>>> In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

>>> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article

>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama is a socialist.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
>>>> socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
>>>> However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
>>>> out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
>>>
>>> OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
>>
>> Do you know what you're doing, Jason? You're throwing shit at a wall,
>> hoping some of it will stick. You're doing it so obviously that it's
>> difficult to take you seriously.
>
> but it's a fact that his mentor in college was a Marist professor. I bet
> you that he will not mention that fact in the future debates with Romney.

"Marxist" or "Marist", which is it?
There is an ever so slight difference between the two, you
know...

[Alex W.]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:02:53 -0400, Caranx latus wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus

>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Alex W. wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you want an
>>>>>> investigation to be done?
>>>>>

>>>>> Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
>>>>> idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go broke, but
>>>>> you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
>>>
>>> It isn't just a waste of money. It's the tip of the iceberg.
>>> Essentially, what Jason is proposing is that *every* decision, *every*
>>> report from the federal government should be thoroughly investigated to
>>> ensure its accuracy (or to put it another way, to ensure that it wasn't
>>> created by idiots) simply on the basis that someone doesn't like it. I
>>> thought Republicans were supposed to be for small government, but Jason
>>> is proposing huge government.
>>>
>>> Ah, wait... I see it now. This must be Jason's plan for creating jobs!
>>>
>>>> It's worse than that because any findings by any such
>>>> investigation that does not fit the preconceived outcome will
>>>> automatically be disbelieved.
>>>
>>> True. The investigative team would likely be stacked with Democrats.
>>
>> It's more complicated. The BLS has the reputation of producing accurate
>> figures such as the unemployment rate. In order to make sure the agency
>> has not been corrupted by political considerations--an investigation needs
>> to be done. If an investigation is not done--it means that any future
>> unemployment rates will not be trusted as being true figures.
>
> Your proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason. Fortunately, the
> rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the Dark Ages.

Perhaps we ought to find out the truth.

Let's just tie down all BLS staff with chains and throw them in
the nearest pond (OK, the Potomac will do). If they drown, they
are clearly innocent and the figures are genuine. If they swim
and live, they must be in league with Obama.

Idea?

[Alex W.]

Joe McCarthy was a miserable drunk who went after anything he
wanted and who neverb othered to concern himself with the
constitution or the civili rights of the people he persecuted.
Even Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition was keener on actual
proof than McCarthy. If he were around today, I could have you
and Mary denounced as Communists without needing a shred of
evidence simply on my say-so.

[Caranx latus]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <VIeds.41747$Sk6....@fed08.iad>,

> Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-F3A11B...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>>> Why is it amazing that I refuse to buy into your fantasies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So--as far as you are concerned--it's was not hate speech when Schultz
>>>>>>> called a woman a bitch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if she actually IS a bitch. It was rude, but definitely not hate
>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hate speech is in eyes of the beholder. I believe it was hate speech.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but we know you're a complete and total unthinking moron.
>>>
>>> You just practiced hate speech so you and Schulz have something in common.
>>
>> No, that was an insult. It wasn't hate speech. I share Jeanne's
>> assessment, I'm afraid, but I don't hate you. I feel rather sorry for you.
>
> The totally bizarre thing is that I think I actually like Jason. It
> boggles my mind.
>
> If I didn't I wouldn't spend so much time futilely trying to get him to
> learn how to deal with facts and the real world.

Unlike the other creationists who post to this newsgroup, Jason is
actually likeable. The only concern that I have is that if/when Jason
has the surgery that will restore full blood flow to his brain, his
brain will have atrophied from lack of exercise.

[Caranx latus]

I'd like to compliment you on your logic, Jason. Perhaps some day, I'll
be able to do that. However, today is not that day.

[Caranx latus]

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-B390FB...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

> > Jason, it is clear you are wrong. After all, many of the employees at
> > the BLS would have been hired during the Bush administration, meaning
> > they just have to be Republicans. Now, the unemployment numbers only got
> > bad after Obama became president (as you love to point out). So, connect
> > the dots! Republicans in the BLS purposely made the unemployment numbers
> > look bad until September. Then, in September, there was a coup by the
> > Democrats, and the numbers started back to where they should be. It is
> > obvious! Just connect the dots!
> >
> > Sarcasm off...
>

> OK--do you you agree that an investigation needs to be done?

No! It would just be a giant waste of money and a wild goose chase. The
only people who believe this are either anti-Obama racists or paranoid
right-wing nut jobs. Which are you?

[Caranx latus]

>> You're proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason. Fortunately, the

>> rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the Dark Ages.
>
> Perhaps we ought to find out the truth.
>
> Let's just tie down all BLS staff with chains and throw them in
> the nearest pond (OK, the Potomac will do). If they drown, they
> are clearly innocent and the figures are genuine. If they swim
> and live, they must be in league with Obama.
>
> Idea?

Or we could put all of them on one side of a balance and put a duck on
the other...

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-7BAEAE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >

> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-AC10F4...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> > > > You have yet to explain how the Republican employees allowed that to be
> > > > done.
> > >
> > > They allowed it to happen since they were friends of the liberal
> > > democrats--I am guessing.
> >

> > Now, you are going from ridiculous to insane. Think about the idiocy you
> > just wrote. Why would the Republicans allow the Democrats to get away
> > with it? Why shouldn't I believe that the high unemployment numbers of
> > the past couple of years was a result of Republicans manipulating the
> > data? After all, Republicans controlled the executive branch for 8 years
> > before Obama became president, and oddly enough, as you pointed out, the
> > unemployment numbers only got bad when Obama became president.
> > Therefore, according to your "connect the dots" theory, Republicans have
> > been making the jobs reports look bad during the Obama administration to
> > make Democrats look bad.
> >
> > Makes as much sense as your idiocy.
>
> It makes sense to me. Many of my fellow employees were liberal democrats
> and I was close friends with them. I was a conservative republican. We
> used the term "I got your back"--which means we supported each other.

Jason, that was sarcasm. I don't believe it for a minute, but it makes
as much sense as you idiocy you espouse, i.e. none.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-950FE7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-7D4B49...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > IOW, you are libeling thousands of federal workers. Tell me, did you
> > > > doubt the data when the unemployment rate was rising in 2009? If not,
> > > > why not? Are you saying all the people who work at BLS are Democrats?
> > > > If
> > > > not, are the Republicans who work there so stupid that they didn't see
> > > > and report the fudging of the data?
> > > >
> > > > Give it up, Jason. With every post, you only look worse and worse.
> > >
> > > NO, I am not saying that all of the employees who work at BLS are
> > > democrats. I believe that some of the democrats that work for BLS are the
> > > ones that used GIGO data.
> >
> > How were they not caught and reported by the Republicans?
> >
> > I have a better conspiracy theory for you. Remember that for the 8 years
> > before Obama became president, Republicans controlled the executive
> > branch. Therefore, using your (il)logic, most of the employees at BLS
> > must be Republicans. Since the unemployment numbers went up right after
> > Obama became president (as you take joy in telling us), all you have to
> > do is connect the dots to see that the unemployment during the Obama
> > administration weren't nearly as high as the BLS reports, since the
> > Republicans at BLS made them look bad to make Obama look bad. In
> > September, there was a rebellion by the Democrats at BLS, and better
> > numbers have started being reported.
> >
> > Hey, it isn't any crazier than the idiocy you continue to spew.
>
> OK--do you agree that an investigation needs to be done.

How many times do I have to answer this question? The answer is NO! What
I presented above was sarcasm, in the hope it would make you realize how
foolish your position on this matter is. Obviously, sarcasm is yet one
more thing you don't understand.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> > > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jason wrote:
> > >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > >>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if GIGO
> > >>>>> data

> > >>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> > >>
> > >> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> > >
> > > I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that crimes
> > > were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >

> > Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
> > suggesting.
>

> A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based on
> GIGO data.

That member of Congress is Alan West, who also believes there are 80
communists in Congress. IOW, the man is a nutbar, with only tenuous
connections to reality.

[David Fritzinger]

In article <XnsA0E8D3D64604...@216.196.121.131>,
Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> news:Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

>
> > In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >> > In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> >> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jason wrote:
> >> >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>,
> >> >>> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if
> >> >>>>> GIGO data was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment
> >> >>>>> figure? I do.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that
> >> > crimes were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> >>
> >> Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
> >> suggesting.
> >
> > A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based
> > on GIGO data.
>
>

> Is that the same member of Congress who believes
> women cannot get pregnant from a "legitimate" rape?

No, the person Jason is referring to is Alan West, another Republican
nut. It seems these days the two words are synonomous: Republican and
nut.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-84A2CE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <QN%cs.195$Be5...@fe44.iad>, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>

> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jason wrote:
> > > > > In article

> > > > > <dfritzin-EF0294...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >

> > > > >>> I don't have a degree in economics and have only taken a
> required class
> > > > >>> called econ 101. I figured it out with my limited knowledge of
> > > > >>> economics.
> > > > >>> Anyone that has a degree in economics could also have easily
> > > > >>> figured
> > > > >>> out
> > > > >>> how to do what I discussed above.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Stop lying, Jason. *YOU* didn't figure out anything. You listened to
> > > > >> some crackpots who told you things you wanted to hear, and you ran
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> it.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is more-or-less correct---I heard that it was GIGO data so I
> took it
> > > > > and ran with it.
> > > >
> > > > Right. You let other people do your thinking for you. It never occurs
> > > > to
> > > > you to withhold judgment on any conservative opinion until verified.
> > >
> > > No--You may want to watch the news tonight. Obama has been caught trying
> > > to get around or circumvent campaign laws. I heard the story on Hannity's
> > > radio show. If my memory is correct, they said the rules state that
> > > anyone
> > > that donates $200.00 or more to any presidental campaign--that the
> > > campaign staff must record the donation and eventually make the records
> > > public. The rules also state that people from foreign countries can't
> > > donate money to presidental campaigns.
> > >
> > > Obama and his campaign staff are circuventing the above rules by asking
> > > everyone to donate $199.00 or less and they also take money from people
> > > living in foreign countries. They can donate as long as the figure is
> > > $199.00 or less. They do not have to record information about any of
> > > those
> > > donations. They will accept larger donations from American citizens and
> > > they do record information about those donations.
> > >
> > > The story will be in the next issue of Newsweek magazine. The story will
> > > be all over the internet during the next several days.
> > >
> > > There is one theory that Obama learned about the Newsweek story the same
> > > day that the debate took place and spent the day learning about the story
> > > instead of preping for the debate.
> >
> > "Paranoia strikes deep
> > Into your heart it will creep
> > It starts when you're always afraid"
> >
> > Stephen Stills
>
> http://nation.foxnews.com/obama-campaign/2012/10/08/report-foreign-nationals-d
> onating-obama-campaign

Let's see. Today is October 10, two days after Faux reported this
supposed story. Let me check other headlines:

NY Times: Nothing there
Wash Post: Nothing there
Time: Nothing there
Newsweek: Nothing there
Yahoo News: Nothing there
Google News: Nothing there

I guess the consensus is that there is nothing there. Guess you were
lied to by Faux again...

[David Fritzinger]

In article <Iwods.23358$oJ3....@fed07.iad>,

Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <L6ods.34596$ab.2...@fed14.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <aTeds.34039$eY6....@fed06.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-B91105...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>

Jeanne, Jeanne, Jeanne. You must know how Jason thinks by now. If he
likes the result (i.e. it makes Obama look bad), then it can't possibly
be wrong. But if the result is something he doesn't like, then there HAS
to be a conspiracy.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus

> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alex W. wrote:

> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article
> > >> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >>
> > >

> > >>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at this point.
> > >>>
> > >>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you want an
> > >>> investigation to be done?
> > >>
> > >> Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
> > >> idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go broke, but
> > >> you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> >
> > It isn't just a waste of money. It's the tip of the iceberg.
> > Essentially, what Jason is proposing is that *every* decision, *every*
> > report from the federal government should be thoroughly investigated to
> > ensure its accuracy (or to put it another way, to ensure that it wasn't
> > created by idiots) simply on the basis that someone doesn't like it. I
> > thought Republicans were supposed to be for small government, but Jason
> > is proposing huge government.
> >
> > Ah, wait... I see it now. This must be Jason's plan for creating jobs!
> >
> > > It's worse than that because any findings by any such
> > > investigation that does not fit the preconceived outcome will
> > > automatically be disbelieved.
> >
> > True. The investigative team would likely be stacked with Democrats.
>
> It's more complicated. The BLS has the reputation of producing accurate
> figures such as the unemployment rate. In order to make sure the agency
> has not been corrupted by political considerations--an investigation needs
> to be done. If an investigation is not done--it means that any future
> unemployment rates will not be trusted as being true figures.

Only by paranoid fools like yourself, Jason. Rational people realize
that the figures were correct and are correct. The only people who
object to the figures are those with an agenda-namely that they hate
President Obama and would do anything and tell any lie to get him
defeated in November. And you happily listen to them and agree with
them.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <L0ods.36381$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Your proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason. Fortunately, the

> > rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the Dark Ages.
>

> An investigation could also clear the BLS of any wrong doing.

Every article you posted says there was no wrongdoing at the BLS.
Doesn't that tell you something? Remember, these are articles *YOU*
posted to try to support your case.

[David Fritzinger]

In article <1h38u09yiz9pf$.1gvu2vtmilbp5$.d...@40tude.net>,
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:30:33 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> > In article <196gsozbtpsrt$.1mu5azjf...@40tude.net>,
> > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:17:16 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1d1uj4wz9iptu.1...@40tude.net>,
> >>> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:26:30 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> You have yet to explain how the Republican employees allowed that to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> done.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They allowed it to happen since they were friends of the liberal
> >>>>>> democrats--I am guessing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, you are going from ridiculous to insane. Think about the idiocy
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> just wrote. Why would the Republicans allow the Democrats to get away
> >>>>> with it? Why shouldn't I believe that the high unemployment numbers of
> >>>>> the past couple of years was a result of Republicans manipulating the

> >>>>> data? After all, Republicans controlled the executive branch for 8
> >>>>> years

> >>>>> before Obama became president, and oddly enough, as you pointed out,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> unemployment numbers only got bad when Obama became president.
> >>>>> Therefore, according to your "connect the dots" theory, Republicans
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> been making the jobs reports look bad during the Obama administration
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> make Democrats look bad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Makes as much sense as your idiocy.
> >>>>

> >>>> It's a conspiracy theory -- it does not need to make sense to be
> >>>> believed.
> >>>
> >>> Think anyone will actually believe it?
> >>>
> >>> No, foolish me. The only conspiracy theories that can be believed are
> >>> when they come from the right...
> >>
> >> Yes, foolish you.
> >> Conspiracy theories require no more than a mindset and will
> >> therefore always find a ready flock of faithful adherents.
> >> Political leanings are irrelevant -- left and right, for
> >> instance, are equally in love with theories proclaiming the
> >> deeply nefarious deeds of international high finance attempts to
> >> rule the world.
> >
> > OK, you are correct. However, in my defense, in the US at least, there
> > are more conspiracy theories on the right, especially regarding Obama.
> > Or, at least these conspiracy theories seem to get more press and have a
> > larger number of adherents. Witness Jason, who believes (or, has
> > believed) every extent anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party conspiracy
> > theory around.
>
> There would be more. The core of the right wing already believes
> in the impossible and unproven, is less well educated, is likely
> to have less exposure to different cultures and ways of living,
> and is feeling defensive because they know that they are losing
> both the culture wars and the demographic battles. This makes
> for a credulous, parochial and aggressive mindset -- prime
> breeding ground for any passing conspiracy.

Thank you for expressing my viewpoint so well. Unfortunately, what you
say is true, and this current discussion about the BLS data only
provides evidence supporting your hypothesis.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-174CF4...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >

[snip]

> > > Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you want an
> > > investigation to be done?
> >
> > Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
> > idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go broke, but
> > you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> >

> > Go read the articles you posted, and see how every one shows you are
> > wrong!
>
> What is your opinion of this article about a man named John Williams that
> has a Master of Business Administration Degree from Dartmouth's Amos Tuck
> School of Business Administration in 1972, where he was named an Edward
> Tuck Scholar.
>
> http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1349726400.php
> �
> Lies, Damned Lies and the 7.8% Unemployment Rate
[snip]

I just did a little research on John Williams. All he does is predict
death and destruction to our economy. Plus, for every John Williams,
there are hundreds of other economists who disagree with him, including
Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman.
> �

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >

> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > >
> > > Obama is a socialist.
> >
> > That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
>
> OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.

That is called guilt by association, and it is not a valid way of
determining, well, anything. You are mirroring the tactics of McCarthy,
and that is not meant as a compliment.

You still have not been able to give one bit of evidence that says Obama
is a socialist. I suspect that will be difficult for you, since you have
proven, over and over again, that you really don't have the faintest
idea of what a socialist is.

Oh yes, your deflection is noted. You ran away from my point that
calling Obama a socialist isn't hate speech, but is a lie.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <eZnds.36379$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Jason wrote:
> > > In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article
> > >> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > >>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>>> Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > >>>
> > >>> Obama is a socialist.
> > >>
> > >> That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > >> socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > >> However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > >> out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
> > >
> > > OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
> >

> > Do you know what you're doing, Jason? You're throwing shit at a wall,
> > hoping some of it will stick. You're doing it so obviously that it's
> > difficult to take you seriously.
>
> but it's a fact that his mentor in college was a Marist professor. I bet
> you that he will not mention that fact in the future debates with Romney.

Why on earth should they? It has absolutely no bearing on who Obama is
today or what he believes. If you had a lick of sense, you would realize
this.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-8F905E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-E33126...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Stop lying, Jason. The things you have accused Obama of are the
> > > > standard
> > > > lies told by racists. If you want to associate with racists, then you
> > > > must be a racist yourself.
> > >
> > > Guess who started the rumors about Obama being born in Kenya?
> > >
> > >
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007
> >
> > Sorry, but Breitbart is anything but a reliable source. Try again.
> >
> > BTW, you are deflecting yet again. Why is that? Now, read what I wrote
> > and respond to what I wrote, not what you may wish I had written.
>
> http://www.wiscnews.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_d566a5bc-9f9d-11e1-947
> 3-0019bb2963f4.html

Did you bother to read the article? Somehow I seriously doubt it, since
the whole article shows how the Republican Party has gone completely off
the rails by becoming so conservative.

"Until a few years ago I usually voted for Republicans. But when Barack
Obama became president I realized something had changed. I was inundated
with emails from Republicans who claimed he was a Muslim, a Marxist, and
was born in Kenya. Where was the logic?
If the CIA under Bush, the FBI, Secret Service, the state of Hawaii, and
Hillary Clinton�s and John McCain�s campaign staffers hadn�t come up
with proof of these claims, I knew they were bogus. To my astonishment,
not one Republican leader spoke out against those malicious lies. They�d
sacrificed their integrity to gain extremists� votes."

It only gets worse for you after that.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-C2A124...@news.eternal-september.org:

Another Republican Jason will doubtless support:


Arkansas GOP rep Jon Hubbard stands by pro-slavery comments
October 10, 2012

http://thegrio.com/2012/10/10/arkansas-gop-rep-jon-hubbard-stands-by-pro-
slavery-comments/

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-10101...@66-53-217-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article <XnsA0E8DF9F27A98...@216.196.121.131>,
> Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>> news:hlwdjsd2-D867AE...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu:

>>
>> > In article
>> > <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >

>> >> In article <XnsA0E850C7176E5...@216.196.121.131>,

>> >> Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> >> > news:Jason-10101...@67-150-121-215.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That is not always true. They have lots of ads in the Sunday
>> >> > > newspaper. Companies like Sears, K-Mart and Walmart have
>> >> > > teenage female models and adult female models wearing the
>> >> > > clothing that is for sale in their stores. Those women are
>> >> > > beautiful and are not unhealthy-looking anorexics.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Chelsea Clinton (when she was a teenage girl) did not look
>> >> > > anything like those teenage models.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Neither did Bush's daughters, but I don't recall anyone
>> >> > slamming them over their appearance.
>> >> >
>> >> > Heck, even when they were ARRESTED the media pretty much
>> >> > left them alone. Can you imagine the rightwing shitstorm
>> >> > if that happened in a Democratic family?
>> >>
>> >> The liberal news media done a poor job of covering the story of
>> >> Clinton losing a lawsuit against a woman that he tried to coerse
>> >> into having sex with him. I found out the information from Fox
>> >> News. The story was not covered in the local liberal newspaper.
>> >
>> > Because it was meaningless and unimportant.
>>
>>
>> Jason is also wrong.
>>
>> The Paula Jones case made the covers of
>> Time, Newsweek, People and scores of other
>> "liberal media" magazines. It was even the
>> source of the Clinton impeachment hearings.
>>
>> Which Jason will be telling us was also
>> ignored by every outlet except Fox News.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> And I played a small role in that case by donating money to the law
> firm that won that case--the name of that law firm is the Rutherford
> Institute.
>


Still care to defend your "liberal media didn't
cover the Paula Jones case" claim?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-A9197D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-138471...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article

> > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article

> > > > > <dfritzin-9C8AC6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]

> > > > > > You have been called on this lie before. Stop lying, Jason.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a fact that the national debt when Obama took office was 10.6
> > > > > trillion dollars and that it is now over 16 trillion dollars. Did
> > > > > Obama
> > > > > claim during his first campaign that he planned to cut the national
> > > > > debt
> > > > > in half?
> > > >
> > > > You have been told the reasons, with supporting data, that says most of
> > > > the debt is a result of Bush policies. Yet, you still spout the same
> > > > lies. Why must you lie all the time? Is that all you have?
> > >
> > > You failed to answer the above question--try again.
> >
> > The answer is no, he didn't. Try getting some accurate information for a
> > change.
> > >
> > > Yes, I admit that Bush2 was responsible for some of that spending.
> >
> > Some, as in ~80%
>

> http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-should-have-brought-pencil.html

An opinion piece, which is full of distortions. For example, the author
claims gas prices have doubled under Obama, without mentioning the facts
that: 1) Gas prices were higher near the end of the Bush administration,
before the crash, and 2) The reason prices were so low at the beginning
of the Obama administration was the recession, which severely lowered
demand for oil.

If that is the quality of the best articles you can find supporting your
ideas, then you really should reexamine your ideas. All you have is an
opinion piece of dubious quality. I presented actual data.

[David Fritzinger]

In article <Jason-10101...@66-53-217-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article

> <hlwdjsd2-B7303E...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne

> > What does that blog post, not even an official opinion piece, have to do
> > with anything?
>
> It provides you with another point of view.

A POV perhaps, but no *EVIDENCE*. Do you understand the difference?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

Why did you bother to post this. It is just another hit piece with no
supporting data by a right-wing nutbar. Besides, it has nothing to do
with what we were discussing.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-AA6B3A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > >

> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-you-seen-the-list-of-75-documented-lies-t
> > > hat-obama-has-told/
> >
> > That is 75 lies (and I didn't bother to look to see how many of them are
> > wrong, but I would be willing to bet that some are). Romney is averaging
> > over 30 lies a WEEK!
>
> Tell me again why you would vote for someone that has told over 20 lies
> and perhaps as many as 75 lies in the last 4 years?

Tell me again why you are voting for someone who told 50 lies in the
last week?

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-10101...@66-53-217-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article

> <hlwdjsd2-D867AE...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>,

> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>

>> > In article <XnsA0E850C7176E5...@216.196.121.131>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>> > > news:Jason-10101...@67-150-121-215.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > That is not always true. They have lots of ads in the Sunday
>> > > > newspaper. Companies like Sears, K-Mart and Walmart have
>> > > > teenage female models and adult female models wearing the
>> > > > clothing that is for sale in their stores. Those women are
>> > > > beautiful and are not unhealthy-looking anorexics.
>> > > >
>> > > > Chelsea Clinton (when she was a teenage girl) did not look
>> > > > anything like those teenage models.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Neither did Bush's daughters, but I don't recall anyone
>> > > slamming them over their appearance.
>> > >
>> > > Heck, even when they were ARRESTED the media pretty much
>> > > left them alone. Can you imagine the rightwing shitstorm
>> > > if that happened in a Democratic family?
>> >
>> > The liberal news media done a poor job of covering the story of
>> > Clinton losing a lawsuit against a woman that he tried to coerse
>> > into having sex with him. I found out the information from Fox
>> > News. The story was not covered in the local liberal newspaper.
>>
>> Because it was meaningless and unimportant.
>

> It may have been the first time in the history of America that a
> president or former president lost a lawsuit related to sexual
> harrassment.


Actually Clinton WON the lawsuit.





Paula Jones verdict: insufficient evidence
April 2 1998

It was not a ruling that anyone expected.
More than four years after Paula Jones filed
her sexual harassment suit against President
Bill Clinton, the federal judge Susan Wright
Webber dismissed the case, saying that it did
not meet the legal standard for sexual harassment.

Judge Webber Wright, who was appointed by Republican
president George Bush in 1990, said that while the
allegations were offensive, that did not mean that
the case could stand up in court. In her 39-page
ruling, Judge Webber Wright knocked down each of Mrs
Jones's claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/72796.stm




It was during the appeal that he got tired of
it all and settled out of court. Don't you know
anything about this case?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-70AF0A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <Jason-09101...@67-150-124-56.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <hlwdjsd2-7F4B06...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article

> > > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <XnsA0E74C54B9CB7...@216.196.121.131>,

> > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > > > > news:Jason-0810121919300001@66-53-223-
> > > > > > 78.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <XnsA0E6D0E1D5BE0...@216.196.121.131>,

> > > > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > > > > >> news:Jason-08101...@66-53-220-193.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > In article
> > > > > > >> >
> <dfritzin-8CFFE4...@news.eternal-september.org>, David

> > > > > > >> > Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> In article

> > > > > > >> >> <Jason-08101...@66-53-215-193.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > >> >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Palin's problem is that she is an expert in no subjects,
> > > > > > >> >> except
> > > > > > >> >> perhaps, self-promotion.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I still respect her and enjoy watching her being interviewed
> > > > > > >> > on
> > > > > > >> > Fox
> > > > > > >> > News. She draws a huge audience when she give speeches.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Why do you respect her?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What has she accomplished that is so notable?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As Mayor, Sarah Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt
> > > > > > >> Sep 3, 2008
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Palin embraces the title, labeling herself a
> > > > > > >> "hard-core fiscal conservative," whose "agenda was
> > > > > > >> to stop wasteful spending." During her tenure, the
> > > > > > >> budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) apart
> > > > > > >> from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million
> > > > > > >> in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million. When Palin left office
> > > > > > >> in 2002, Wasilla had ?racked up nearly $20 million in
> > > > > > >> long-term debt,? or roughly $3,000 of debt per resident.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/09/03/172325/wasilla-in-deb
> > > > > > >> t/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Obama
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evasion noted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What has Palin accomplished that earns her your respect?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "That's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."
> > > > > > Sarah Palin, July 3, 2009, while announcing she was quitting
> > > > > > her governors job to go make more money in the private sector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just as much as Ed Schultz has accomplished.
> > > >
> > > > Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Schultz did not quit his job because it was soooo hard.
> > >
> > > But he took some days off for calling a lady a bitch. It that a kind
> > > thing
> > > to do or a hateful thing to do?
> >
> > That is not the same thing. Palin left her job because she is a quitter,
> > and only has a big mouth that speaks garbage. Shultz did *NOT* quit his
> > job because it was too hard, but took a leave of absence because he had
> > make a mistake.
> >
> > Tell me? Did Limbaugh take a leave of absence after calling Sandra Fluke
> > a slut? How about after he said she should take videos of her having sex
> > and put them on the internet? No? I guess that makes him much less of a
> > man than Ed Shultz.
>
> We were discussing Ed Schultz--not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh did say he
> was sorry for saying that Clinton's daughter looked like a dog but I don't
> know if he said he was sorry for calling Sandra Flunk a slut.
>
> It's my opinion that Shultz sends out hate vibes when discussing
> conservatives that he has no respect for.

Sorry, Jason, but you don't get to tell us how the conversation should
go here. Limbaugh is obviously one of your heroes, as you defend him
continuously, despite the proof that he is a liar and, let's face it,
not exactly a paragon of virtue. You are making accusations against Ed
Shultz, who I admit I don't know all that much about, as I only watch
him for a couple minutes at a time every now and then. You claim hatred
from Shultz, but have only been able to provide a single example of this
supposed hatred, for which Shultz apologized and took a leave of
absence. I compared this to the actions of your hero Limbaugh, who shows
real hatred a great deal of the time, and barely apologizes (and only if
it looks as if he will face sanctions for his hate speech), and has
never taken a leave of absence as a result of the hateful things he has
said. Do you understand the comparison yet?

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-10101...@66-53-217-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article <dUods.46371$Sk6....@fed08.iad>, Caranx latus

> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>> > In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
>> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jason wrote:
>> >>> In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
>> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Jason wrote:

>> >>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>,

>> >>>>> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <snip>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine
>> >>>>>>> if
> GIGO data
>> >>>>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Because you love WASTING money.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that
>> >>> crimes were committed--so an investigation should be done.
>> >>
>> >> Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that
>> >> you're suggesting.
>> >
>> > A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been
>> > based on GIGO data.
>>

>> Just one? What do the remaining 534 think?
>
> I believe they were out of session when Jack Welch made his first
> statement about this issue.


Congress has been in session since Sept 1 of this year.

Welch made his first statement just last week.

Care to try again?

[Alex W.]

A nicely comprehensive blog on all of the Obama conspiracy
theories, as well as some rather useful debunking material:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

[David Fritzinger]

In article <18cl6uihoyb2e$.1ce7mtqjqx7x5$.d...@40tude.net>,

Wow! What a great resource. Thanks.

[David Fritzinger]

In article <XnsA0E94B85CA75C...@216.196.121.131>,

Yeah, I saw that. Unbelievable!

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-10101...@66-53-217-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article
> <hlwdjsd2-297860...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>,

> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> > In article

>> > <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>, David

>> > Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article
>> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> > >

>> > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>,

>> > > > Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> > > [snip]
>> > > > > Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
>> > > >
>> > > > Obama is a socialist.
>> > >
>> > > That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
>> > > socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a
>> > > conservative. However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has
>> > > been repeatedly pointed out to you, with references to show you
>> > > are wrong.
>> >
>> > OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
>>

>> So what?
>
> It indicated to me that when Obama was in college that he was a fan of
> Marxism.



By that standard Paul Ryan was a fan of atheism
because of his idulation of Ayn Rand.

[Jason]

In article
<8096d11d-d3e9-4a15...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 3:32=A0am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <Jason-1010121736230...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > In article <Jason-1010121626170...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com=
> >,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <dfritzin-A9197D.10322510102...@news.eternal-september.org=
> >,
> > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <Jason-0910121534270...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article <dfritzin-138471.16203309102...@news.eternal-september=
> .org>,
> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <Jason-0910121116370...@66-53-223-160.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > <dfritzin-9C8AC6.07381909102...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > > > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > You have been called on this lie before. Stop lying, Jason.
> >

> > > > > > > > It's a fact that the national debt when Obama took office was=

> 10.6
> > > > > > > > trillion dollars and that it is now over 16 trillion dollars.
> > > Did Obama
> > > > > > > > claim during his first campaign that he planned to cut the
> > > national debt
> > > > > > > > in half?
> >

> > > > > > > You have been told the reasons, with supporting data, that says=
> most
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the debt is a result of Bush policies. Yet, you still spout the=

> same
> > > > > > > lies. Why must you lie all the time? Is that all you have?
> >
> > > > > > You failed to answer the above question--try again.
> >

> > > > > The answer is no, he didn't. Try getting some accurate information =
> for a
> > > > > change.
> >
> > > > > > Yes, I admit that Bush2 was responsible for some of that spending=

> .
> >
> > > > > Some, as in ~80%
> >

> > > >http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-should-have-brought-pencil.=
> ..
> >
> > >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-...
> >
> > And why are you bringing up this idiocy again? What does it have to do
> > with the discussion?
> >
> > And I thought you claimed to no longer be a birther, so why are you
> > posting this article since it PROVES that you still are a birther?
>
> I guess he thinks its fun to annoy people on here.
>
> After all he has said he thinks posting on here is fun.
>
> More fun in fact than reading a book.
> >
> > --
> > JD
> >
> > "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Perhaps the question that I was responding to was clipped or deleted. The
birther issue came up again since the movie entitled 2016 OBAMA'S AMERICA
showed information that proved that Obama was the first birther. I googled
OBAMA THE FIRST BIRTHER and got some excellent hits--and yes--I did use
quote marks.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-5CC516...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yes--I do understand. If you have listened to Rush--you probably do
understand that he is not only a conservative talk show host but is also a
entertainer. He has a excellent sense of humor and it's on occassion
difficult to determine if he is joking or trying to be serious. He does
not appear to me to be filled with hate. Rush has no respect for liberal
democrats. Perhaps it does cross the line to hate from time to time.
However, I believe that in most cases--it does not cross the line so
remains at--just disrespect.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-61847B...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-AA6B3A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-you-seen-the-list-of-75-documented-lies-t
> > > > hat-obama-has-told/
> > >
> > > That is 75 lies (and I didn't bother to look to see how many of them are
> > > wrong, but I would be willing to bet that some are). Romney is averaging
> > > over 30 lies a WEEK!
> >
> > Tell me again why you would vote for someone that has told over 20 lies
> > and perhaps as many as 75 lies in the last 4 years?
>
> Tell me again why you are voting for someone who told 50 lies in the
> last week?

You go first.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-A47FB6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It's my guess that the question that I was responding to was deleted.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-CAFFAF...@news.eternal-september.org>,

yes--but other POV are also important.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-346A6B...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I have heard others say that the gas prices were low during the first
several months of Obama's time in office but over the last three or more
years have doubled in price. Is that correct?

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E94BD597D75...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

It appears that they done a better job than the local newspaper.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E94CDA0F1DC...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

The Rutherford Institute defended Paula Jones and I was once a member of
the Rutherford Institute. I still get their newsletter once a month. This
is what they told me about the case:


Key Cases in the History of The Rutherford Institute


In Defense of Women零 Rights in the Workplace
Jones v. Clinton

In 1997, The Rutherford Institute agreed to assist Paula Jones in her
sexual harassment and sex discrimination suit against President Bill
Clinton. What followed was a precedent setting case that received
widespread coverage in the national media. Never before had a president零
sexual misconduct come under such close scrutiny, and Clinton零 videotaped
deposition would be the first time that a sitting president would be
questioned as a defendant in a court case. And, of course, Clinton零 false
testimony about Monica Lewinsky during that deposition would result in
only the second presidential impeachment trial in American history.
Issues

In 1991, while Jones was working at a hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, she
met then governor Bill Clinton during a conference being held at the
hotel. Clinton later invited Jones to meet privately with him in his hotel
room, where he proceeded to expose himself and make crude sexual advances.
When Jones rebuffed those advances and turned to leave, Clinton stopped
her at the door and said, "You雹e a smart girl. Let零 keep this between
ourselves."

When John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, decided to
help Jones, critics on both the right and the left attacked him. Critics
on the right accused The Rutherford Institute of becoming too "political",
while critics on the left accused The Institute of being part of a "vast
right-wing conspiracy" to destroy the president. Whitehead saw it
differently and said so early on. "Our involvement in Paula Jones零 case
stems from the fundamental principle that no person要ot even the President
of the United States虹s above the law," said Whitehead. "This case is not
about politics. It is about protecting the guiding philosophy of this
country that all people are equal before the law."

In the end, Bill Clinton agreed to pay Jones $850,000 to settle the sexual
harassment and discrimination lawsuit against him, bringing to a
conclusion four long years of seeking justice. The suit raised many
important issues that the American people and their leaders will have to
deal with for years to come, such as the importance of protecting women
from workplace harassment and the role of the rule of law in our highest
offices.

The Rutherford Institute

[Caranx latus]

Look for yourself:
Gas Price Watch: <http://bit.ly/RRoyHN>

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-BC9CC6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <dfritzin-B390FB...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]

> > > Jason, it is clear you are wrong. After all, many of the employees at
> > > the BLS would have been hired during the Bush administration, meaning
> > > they just have to be Republicans. Now, the unemployment numbers only got
> > > bad after Obama became president (as you love to point out). So, connect
> > > the dots! Republicans in the BLS purposely made the unemployment numbers
> > > look bad until September. Then, in September, there was a coup by the
> > > Democrats, and the numbers started back to where they should be. It is
> > > obvious! Just connect the dots!
> > >
> > > Sarcasm off...
> >
> > OK--do you you agree that an investigation needs to be done?
>
> No! It would just be a giant waste of money and a wild goose chase. The
> only people who believe this are either anti-Obama racists or paranoid
> right-wing nut jobs. Which are you?

For years, the BLS unemployment rate figures were trusted to be honest
figures that could be relied upon for the official unemployment rate.

It's my guess that in the years to come that those figures will no longer
be trusted as the correct figures but instead figures effected by
political considerations.

Is that what you want to happen?

An excellent investigation could clear them of any wrong doing and faith
in the BLS would be restored.

I have heard several conservatives say that the U6 unemployment rate of
14.7% is more accurate than the BLS unemployment rate.

Perhaps in the years to come there will be about three different
unemployment rates such as the BLS unemployment rate and the U6
unemployment rate and one other one. Is that what you want to happen?

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-64809D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <V5fds.36076$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jason wrote:
> > > > In article <LO5ds.19252$5R7....@fe08.iad>, Caranx latus
> > > > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > >>> In article <hlwdjsd2-743609...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > > >>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> Do you believe an investigation should be done to determine if GIGO
> > > >>>>> data
> > > >>>>> was used to come up with the 7.8% unemployment figure? I do.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Because you love WASTING money.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I also like to make sure that no crimes were committed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Guilty until proven innocent, Jason?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if any crimes were committed but it is possible that crimes
> > > > were committed--so an investigation should be done.
> > >
> > > Right. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the approach that you're
> > > suggesting.
> >
> > A member of Congress also believes the 7.8% figure may have been based on
> > GIGO data.
>

> That member of Congress is Alan West, who also believes there are 80
> communists in Congress. IOW, the man is a nutbar, with only tenuous
> connections to reality.

Only 80 communists--that is shocking.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E94DB13C6C2...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

One news report recently indicated that a congress. committee was called
into session to deal with the crisis related to the embassy attacks. The
same report said the rest of the congress was out of session--except for
that one committee. Perhaps the news report had incorrect information.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E94B85CA75C...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

And a former democrat senator was once a member of the KKK.

[Caranx latus]

On another subject, Jason, tell me whether you would support any of the
following principles and why or why not:

(1) economic justice and security in the U.S. and global economies;
(2) civil rights and civil liberties;
(3) global peace and security; and
(4) environmental protection and energy independence.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-A7AFA9...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <dfritzin-84A2CE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article

> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-213-196.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <QN%cs.195$Be5...@fe44.iad>, Caranx latus

<aug....@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jason wrote:
> > > > > > In article

> > > > > > <dfritzin-EF0294...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> I don't have a degree in economics and have only taken a
> > required class
> > > > > >>> called econ 101. I figured it out with my limited knowledge of
> > > > > >>> economics.
> > > > > >>> Anyone that has a degree in economics could also have easily
> > > > > >>> figured
> > > > > >>> out
> > > > > >>> how to do what I discussed above.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Stop lying, Jason. *YOU* didn't figure out anything. You
listened to
> > > > > >> some crackpots who told you things you wanted to hear, and you ran
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is more-or-less correct---I heard that it was GIGO data so I
> > took it
> > > > > > and ran with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. You let other people do your thinking for you. It never occurs
> > > > > to
> > > > > you to withhold judgment on any conservative opinion until verified.
> > > >
> > > > No--You may want to watch the news tonight. Obama has been caught trying
> > > > to get around or circumvent campaign laws. I heard the story on
Hannity's
> > > > radio show. If my memory is correct, they said the rules state that
> > > > anyone
> > > > that donates $200.00 or more to any presidental campaign--that the
> > > > campaign staff must record the donation and eventually make the records
> > > > public. The rules also state that people from foreign countries can't
> > > > donate money to presidental campaigns.
> > > >
> > > > Obama and his campaign staff are circuventing the above rules by asking
> > > > everyone to donate $199.00 or less and they also take money from people
> > > > living in foreign countries. They can donate as long as the figure is
> > > > $199.00 or less. They do not have to record information about any of
> > > > those
> > > > donations. They will accept larger donations from American citizens and
> > > > they do record information about those donations.
> > > >
> > > > The story will be in the next issue of Newsweek magazine. The story will
> > > > be all over the internet during the next several days.
> > > >
> > > > There is one theory that Obama learned about the Newsweek story the same
> > > > day that the debate took place and spent the day learning about
the story
> > > > instead of preping for the debate.
> > >
> > > "Paranoia strikes deep
> > > Into your heart it will creep
> > > It starts when you're always afraid"
> > >
> > > Stephen Stills
> >
> >
http://nation.foxnews.com/obama-campaign/2012/10/08/report-foreign-nationals-d
> > onating-obama-campaign
>
> Let's see. Today is October 10, two days after Faux reported this
> supposed story. Let me check other headlines:
>
> NY Times: Nothing there
> Wash Post: Nothing there
> Time: Nothing there
> Newsweek: Nothing there
> Yahoo News: Nothing there
> Google News: Nothing there
>
> I guess the consensus is that there is nothing there. Guess you were
> lied to by Faux again...

Why would the liberal news media push this news story? It's still being
covered in a minor way on Fox News and by conservative radio talk show
hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. The upcoming VP debate is now the major
story. The conservatives are saying that Biden will be an attack dog
during the debate. He will probably make a fool of himself such as saying
the middle class has been in crisis mode during the last three years.
Conservatives love it when Biden tells the truth.

Jason

[Jason]

In article <sk8u208jakwb$.1kgypd38upfbj$.d...@40tude.net>,
ing...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:02:53 -0400, Caranx latus wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:

> >> In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> >> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Alex W. wrote:

> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>

> >>>>>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at this
point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you
want an
> >>>>>> investigation to be done?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
> >>>>> idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go broke, but
> >>>>> you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> >>>
> >>> It isn't just a waste of money. It's the tip of the iceberg.
> >>> Essentially, what Jason is proposing is that *every* decision, *every*
> >>> report from the federal government should be thoroughly investigated to
> >>> ensure its accuracy (or to put it another way, to ensure that it wasn't
> >>> created by idiots) simply on the basis that someone doesn't like it. I
> >>> thought Republicans were supposed to be for small government, but Jason
> >>> is proposing huge government.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, wait... I see it now. This must be Jason's plan for creating jobs!
> >>>
> >>>> It's worse than that because any findings by any such
> >>>> investigation that does not fit the preconceived outcome will
> >>>> automatically be disbelieved.
> >>>
> >>> True. The investigative team would likely be stacked with Democrats.
> >>
> >> It's more complicated. The BLS has the reputation of producing accurate
> >> figures such as the unemployment rate. In order to make sure the agency
> >> has not been corrupted by political considerations--an investigation needs
> >> to be done. If an investigation is not done--it means that any future
> >> unemployment rates will not be trusted as being true figures.
> >
> > Your proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason. Fortunately, the
> > rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the Dark Ages.
>
> Perhaps we ought to find out the truth.
>
> Let's just tie down all BLS staff with chains and throw them in
> the nearest pond (OK, the Potomac will do). If they drown, they
> are clearly innocent and the figures are genuine. If they swim
> and live, they must be in league with Obama.
>
> Idea?

I believe that is not necessary. Let's just water board them until they
tell the truth :-))

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-A857C0...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <dfritzin-174CF4...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >

> [snip]

> > > > Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you want an
> > > > investigation to be done?
> > >
> > > Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
> > > idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go broke, but
> > > you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> > >

> > > Go read the articles you posted, and see how every one shows you are
> > > wrong!
> >
> > What is your opinion of this article about a man named John Williams that
> > has a Master of Business Administration Degree from Dartmouth's Amos Tuck
> > School of Business Administration in 1972, where he was named an Edward
> > Tuck Scholar.
> >
> > http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1349726400.php
> >  
> > Lies, Damned Lies and the 7.8% Unemployment Rate
> [snip]
>
> I just did a little research on John Williams. All he does is predict
> death and destruction to our economy. Plus, for every John Williams,
> there are hundreds of other economists who disagree with him, including
> Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman.
> >  

I have always been a fan of John Williams.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-B4A3F7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>

> > In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alex W. wrote:

> > > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0400, David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article
> > > >> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >

> > > >>>> You really need to stop digging; you're halfway to China at
this point.
> > > >>>

> > > >>> Not really--this is fun--I hope an investigation is done. Do you
want an
> > > >>> investigation to be done?
> > > >>
> > > >> Why have an investigation just to satisfy some conservative, paranoid
> > > >> idiots? You claim you want to save money so the US doesn't go
broke, but
> > > >> you want to waste money on something as foolish as this.
> > >

> > > It isn't just a waste of money. It's the tip of the iceberg.
> > > Essentially, what Jason is proposing is that *every* decision, *every*
> > > report from the federal government should be thoroughly investigated to
> > > ensure its accuracy (or to put it another way, to ensure that it wasn't
> > > created by idiots) simply on the basis that someone doesn't like it. I
> > > thought Republicans were supposed to be for small government, but Jason
> > > is proposing huge government.
> > >
> > > Ah, wait... I see it now. This must be Jason's plan for creating jobs!
> > >
> > > > It's worse than that because any findings by any such
> > > > investigation that does not fit the preconceived outcome will
> > > > automatically be disbelieved.
> > >
> > > True. The investigative team would likely be stacked with Democrats.
> >
> > It's more complicated. The BLS has the reputation of producing accurate
> > figures such as the unemployment rate. In order to make sure the agency
> > has not been corrupted by political considerations--an investigation needs
> > to be done. If an investigation is not done--it means that any future
> > unemployment rates will not be trusted as being true figures.
>

> Only by paranoid fools like yourself, Jason. Rational people realize
> that the figures were correct and are correct. The only people who
> object to the figures are those with an agenda-namely that they hate
> President Obama and would do anything and tell any lie to get him
> defeated in November. And you happily listen to them and agree with
> them.

But what if the 7.8% figure was effected by politics?

Glenn Beck is calling it the October surprise.

[Jason]

In article <6dxds.45479$VC5....@fed15.iad>, Caranx latus
<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > In article <CCods.23361$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <Iwods.23358$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>> In article <L6ods.34596$ab.2...@fed14.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <aTeds.34039$eY6....@fed06.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>>>>>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-B91105...@news.giganews.com>,

Jeanne
> >>>>>>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> But what if GIGO data was used to come up with a 7.8%
> >>> unemployment rate?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How did the Republican employees allow fake numbers to be used?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And if they did use fake numbers, why hasn't some Republican
employee
> >>>>>>>>>> released the correct numbers?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My guess is that they are friends with the workers that done
the dirty
> >>>>>>>>> deed and don't want to play a role in getting their friends fired.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers caught the Republican workers
> >>>>>>>> having sex with interns in BLS washrooms and are blackmailing
them into
> >>>>>>>> silence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers have cut the hands off the
> >>>>>>>> Republican workers and cut their tongues out so they can't rat
> > them out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess is that the Democrat workers have assassinated all of the
> >>>>>>>> Republican workers and are telling their spouses that they've been
> >>>>>>>> reassigned to a secret mission in a faraway country.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess is that the BLS doesn't have any workers at all. It
only has a
> >>>>>>>> computer and it's a Democrat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyone else want to play?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK--do you agree that an investigation needs to be conducted?
yes or no
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope. The issue is that you don't like the latest numbers from the BLS.
> >>>>>> That isn't sufficient reason to launch an investigation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you can't trust the results from the BLS now, what makes you think
> >>>>>> the results were *ever* trustworthy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe that future BLS unemployment numbers may not be
considered to be
> >>>>> trustworthy unless an investigation clears them of any wrong doing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Evasion rejected.
> >>>>
> >>>> Repeating the question: If you can't trust the results from the BLS now,
> >>>> what makes you think the results were *ever* trustworthy?
> >>>
> >>> Interesting point--that sort of investigation would take lots of time. An
> >>> investigation over how the 7.8% figure was determined would take far less
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> Evasion rejected.
> >>
> >> Repeating the question *again*: If you can't trust the results from the
> >> BLS now, what makes you think the results were *ever* trustworthy?
> >
> > Once the investigation related to 7.8% figure is finished--perhaps they
> > may want to explore the issue that you mentioned in your post.
>
> Evasion rejected.
>
> Repeating the question *again*: If you can't trust the results from the
> BLS now, what makes you think the results were *ever* trustworthy?

If an investigation does not clear the BLS--that may be the end result.

The U6 unemployment rate may become the trustworthy figure--it's presently
at 14.7 percent.

[Jason]

In article <t6qjhz0xoes4$.p5knj5jb...@40tude.net>, ing...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:34:33 -0700, Jason wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <hlwdjsd2-03D30B...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu>, Jeanne
> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <uuods.23356$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Jason wrote:
> >>> > > In article <L0ods.36381$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> >>> > > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Jason wrote:
> >>> > >>> In article <5_eds.36057$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus

> >>> > >> Your proposing 'guilty until proven innocent', Jason.
Fortunately, the
> >>> > >> rest of us live in a civilized society. You're still in the
Dark Ages.
> >>> > >

> >>> > > An investigation could also clear the BLS of any wrong doing.
> >>> >
> >>> > You should be investigated for murder, Jason. Such an investigation
> >>> > would clear you of any wrong doing.
> >>>
> >>> If Joseph McCarthy was still around--he could make an excellent case
> >>> against Obama.
> >>
> >> Thank you for admitting that this conspiracy theory is nothing but an
> >> evil witch hunt.
> >
> > Joseph McCarthy went after communists. He did not concern himself with
> > issues like unemployment rates.
>
> Joe McCarthy was a miserable drunk who went after anything he
> wanted and who neverb othered to concern himself with the
> constitution or the civili rights of the people he persecuted.
> Even Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition was keener on actual
> proof than McCarthy. If he were around today, I could have you
> and Mary denounced as Communists without needing a shred of
> evidence simply on my say-so.

We have no power--he went after important people.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-6D63F7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> Every article you posted says there was no wrongdoing at the BLS.
> Doesn't that tell you something? Remember, these are articles *YOU*
> posted to try to support your case.

Did you forget this article:

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1349726400.php
 
Lies, Damned Lies and the 7.8% Unemployment Rate

Shadowstats.com Author John Williams wonders if politics are at play
behind the latest jobs report, which shows 114,000 new U.S. jobs since
September and a 0.3% drop in unemployment since August. Investors need to
know how seasonal factors and month-to-month volatility affect the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' reports. In this exclusive interview with The Gold
Report, Williams explains why he doubts that we are in a recovery. The
take-away? Look at the unadjusted figures before you sell your gold.
 
The Gold Report: John, as Mark Twain famously quipped, "There are three
kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) just came out with new jobs numbers that show the country
added 114,000 jobs since September and the unemployment rate dropped to
7.8%, down from 8.1% in August. On Shadowstats.com, you argue that the
numbers are wrong and pointed to politics as a possible reason for the
incorrect figures. Are unemployment statistics being manipulated and if so
how?
 
John Williams: I normally put out a commentary on the numbers, and, in
this one, I raised the possibility of politics as a factor. The problem is
very serious misreporting of the numbers and the result is what appears to
be a bogus unemployment rate. The BLS reported a drop in the unemployment
rate from 8.1% to 7.8%, three-tenths of a percentage point, which runs
counter to what is being experienced in the marketplace.
 
What few people realize is that the headline unemployment rate is
calculated each month using a unique set of seasonal adjustments. The
August unemployment rate, which was 8.1%, was calculated using what BLS
calls a "concurrent seasonal factor adjustment." Each month the agency
recalculates the series to adjust for regular seasonal patterns tied to
the school year or holiday shopping season or whatever is considered
relevant. The next month, it does the same thing using another set of
seasonal factors. Rather than publish a number that's consistent with the
prior month's estimate, it recalculates everything, including the previous
month, but it doesn't publish the revised number from the previous month.
 
The assumption is that the monthly recalculations don't make much
difference over time, but they do. The depth and the protraction of the
current severe economic downturn have thrown off the annual
seasonal-factor adjustments. The result is very volatile seasonal factors
month-to-month. That means the new calculations for the September number
may have resulted in a very significant revision to the August number.
Again, though, the BLS doesn't publish that, so the headline
August-to-September 2012 change in the unemployment rate is not consistent
and not comparable. Last December, when the BLS put the seasonal
adjustments on a consistent basis for the year, as it does once per year,
the November 2011 unemployment rate had just been reported as showing
four-tenths of a percentage point drop‹an unusually large monthly decline
that never took place. When revised to a consistent basis, the drop in
headline November unemployment revised to two-tenths of a percent. That is
a big change. I think something like that happened here.
 
The BLS knows what the actual number is. It has an actual estimate for
August, which is consistent with September, but it doesn't publish it
because it says it "doesn't want to confuse data users." But it is putting
out numbers that have no meaning month-to-month. One month before the
election and a month after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced
Quantitative Easing (QE) 3, is not a time to have inaccurate numbers. The
BLS should publish the consistent numbers now.
 
TGR: You have said that BLS has been using this recalculation method for
years. Do you feel that this month the numbers were more skewed than usual
because of the political timing?
 
JW: Because there is no transparency in the calculation and reporting
process, it leaves open the possibility of manipulation. What has happened
here, though, is that in the wake of the economic collapse, the seasonal
factors have been heavily distorted and are not stable on a month-to-month
basis. Where the concept originally might not have made that much of a
difference, it does make a big difference now. I suspect that is why we
woke up to such a screwy unemployment rate this time around.
 
The 114,000 jobs growth in the payroll survey (which reflects the number
of payroll jobs, counting multiple jobholders more than once) also is
suspect and subject to concurrent-seasonal-factor adjustments. There,
however, the BLS publishes revised estimates for the two prior months that
are on a consistent basis with the headline number. Nonetheless, jobs in
even earlier months are not re-reported, although they too are
recalculated each month, with the effect that jobs reported in earlier
periods can be moved into present reporting, boosting the current numbers,
without the related earlier changes being revised in the published
historical numbers. Nonetheless, the purported 114,000 jobs gain was not
statistically significant.
 
From the household survey, which gives us the unemployment rate and counts
the number of people who are employed (multiple-job holders are counted
but once), the headline gain in employment was 873,000, the largest
seasonally-adjusted monthly increase since Ronald Reagan's first-term.
That number clearly is nonsense and again suggests there is a severe
problem with the seasonal factors.
 
TGR: Do you think the unemployment rate was manipulated on purpose or did
the bad economy just make the reporting more confusing?
 
JW: It could have been manipulated. I do not know and do not have direct
evidence of current political massaging of the data. I know for certain
that there have been direct political manipulations by different
administrations, since the days of President Lyndon Johnson, involving
various data sets that have included the gross domestic product (GDP), the
trade numbers and the employment and unemployment numbers.
 
From what I've seen of the Obama administration, the reporting has been
reasonably clean. Nonetheless, at best, the administration is using
seriously flawed data, and the reporting and calculation process has the
potential for manipulation. The timing of the announcement of such a big
downside swing in unemployment certainly is a fortuitous circumstance for
the administration's political needs.
 
Main Street U.S.A., however, has a much better sense on the economic
reality than do the government's economic statisticians. If the headline
unemployment rate is not as advertised, a goodly portion of the public
will not buy it. Past experience has shown gimmicked reporting often
backfiring on the manipulators.
 
TGR: What is the correct unemployment rate? What would be a reliable data set?
 
JW: I don't know of one. The unemployment rate comes out of government
surveying and data manipulation, and the base number is wrong. What are
good in theory are the un-adjusted numbers, although unemployment
definitions still suffer. Those don't get revised for the seasonal
factors. But there you have regular annual patterns of economic activity,
so you'll see the unemployment rate go up and down as it follows the
normal flow of annual business activity through the various seasons. Even
so, it makes some sense to look at that unadjusted series over time. The
average person doesn't think of himself or herself as employed on a
seasonally adjusted basis, but a lot of people, according to the
government, are so employed.
 
If you surveyed everyone in the country as to whether he or she were
unemployed, you'd get an unemployment rate above 22%, instead of the
headline 7.8%. The difference is in how the government defines whether
someone is unemployed, versus the view from common experience.
 
TGR: What are the ultimate consequences of inaccurate statistics on the
stock market, commodity prices and everyday people?
 
JW: Right now, the impact of the unemployment numbers is mostly political,
although the Federal Reserve has made it part of its targeting in terms of
QE3. But the primary political concerns are on the impact to the upcoming
election, which is what makes the timing of this release so suspect.
 
There is a serious problem with the reporting. If it has been used to
manipulate the public, that eventually will come out. If it hasn't, the
simplest thing is for the BLS just to publish the actual numbers. They
have them. They don't have to do any recalculations. They've already done
that. They just need to publish them in a timely manner.
 
TGR: There seemed to be an impact on the stock market. The Dow ended
Friday up. Was that simply a coincidence?
 
JW: Yes, the market jumped all over the place. But I see no rationale
whatsoever behind the movements in the stock market. Any numbers will be
used to spin a story that will explain what's happening with stocks at a
given point in time.
 
TGR: What about commodity prices? What will this do to gold?
 
JW: You had some sell-off in gold Friday. Again, that could all be spin.
Was it due to people thinking Bernanke was not going to have to ease
monetary policy as much? I'm not into day-to-day calling of the markets.
The stock market is absolutely irrational. You can make up all sorts of
stories based on that. Markets respond to lots of really worthless
information‹the 114,000 gain in payrolls for example is not statistically
meaningful. It could have been a contraction as well as a gain, when the
129,000-job margin of error is considered. Yet, the markets gyrate wildly
over very small changes that have no relationship to what's actually
happening in the economy. I think traders just love to trade. It's like
going to the racetrack and betting on a horse because of how it wiggles
its ears. It has little to do with the underlying fundamentals.
 
TGR: Is there an ultimate consequence of having faulty data? Do incorrect
numbers build on themselves and become more inaccurate over time? Will we
see a jump in the unemployment rate in December when they are recalculated
after the election? Are there other consequences?
 
JW: When governments use bad numbers, and believe them, they don't respond
appropriately to problems like unemployment and inflation. People don't
properly target their investment returns or adjust their income
projections. There are good reasons for having accurate information, but
accurate numbers just are not coming out of the U.S. government at the
moment.
 
TGR: You mentioned the correlation with the announcement of QE3. When we
talked in May, you called QE "dangerous" and said it would eventually lead
to a massive decline in the U.S. dollar, triggering new dollar selling and
lead to dollar inflation, spikes in oil prices and eventually
hyperinflation. Your special commentary on inflation and systemic
conditions comes out next week on ShadowStats. Can we expect any good
news?
 
JW: The outlook hasn't changed. I've been looking at this for a long time.
Let me put it this way: The economy is not suddenly improving. Underlying
fundamentals have not changed. You just are getting bad-quality numbers.
 
The average guy has a pretty good sense of what is going on. When Main
Street suddenly starts getting jobs and businesses pick up, then we will
know the economy is picking up. Shy of that, I'd be wary of anything I
hear out of the government on business activity.
 
TGR: So the reports that we are in a recovery aren't accurate? What
indicators should we be watching?
 
JW: Over time, you will find the better-quality statistics are confirming
that we never had an economic recovery, and that we're not about to get
one. When you have faulty numbers, you need to look at the underlying
fundamentals to see what's happening. The problem is the consumer doesn't
have the liquidity, either from the standpoint of income growth or credit
availability, to sustain positive growth in the GDP.
 
TGR: Thank you for your time, John. We will check in with you periodically
to see if you see any changes in those numbers.
 
 
Walter J. "John" Williams has been a private consulting economist and a
specialist in government economic reporting for 30 years. His economic
consultancy is called Shadow Government Statistics (ShadowStats.com). His
early work in economic reporting led to front-page stories in The New York
Times and Investor's Business Daily. He received a bachelor's degree in
economics, cum laude, from Dartmouth College in 1971, and was awarded a
Master of Business Administration from Dartmouth's Amos Tuck School of

[Jason]

In article <2v7ul8z4750a.h...@40tude.net>, ing...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:35:14 -0700, Jason wrote:
>
> > In article <eZnds.36379$L57....@fed13.iad>, Caranx latus
> > <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> >>> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article

> >>>> <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>>> In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> >>>>> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>>> Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obama is a socialist.
> >>>>
> >>>> That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> >>>> socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> >>>> However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> >>>> out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
> >>>
> >>> OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
> >>

> >> Do you know what you're doing, Jason? You're throwing shit at a wall,
> >> hoping some of it will stick. You're doing it so obviously that it's
> >> difficult to take you seriously.
> >
> > but it's a fact that his mentor in college was a Marist professor. I bet
> > you that he will not mention that fact in the future debates with Romney.
>
> "Marxist" or "Marist", which is it?
> There is an ever so slight difference between the two, you
> know...

OK--Marxist professor. And he will not be wearing a Groucho Marx glasses.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-9A98C5...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article

> <Jason-10101...@67-150-120-114.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> Why on earth should they? It has absolutely no bearing on who Obama is
> today or what he believes. If you had a lick of sense, you would realize
> this.

But he is still a closet socialist.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-AF29A3...@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article

> <Jason-10101...@67-150-169-162.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-AD283A...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-09101...@66-53-220-230.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <hlwdjsd2-F1AD59...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > > > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > Telling the truth is NOT hate speech.
> > > >
> > > > Obama is a socialist.
> > >
> > > That isn't hate speech, since there is nothing wrong with being a
> > > socialist. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a conservative.
> > > However, what you wrote above *IS* a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed
> > > out to you, with references to show you are wrong.
> >
> > OK--Obama mentor when he was in college was a Marxist professor.
>

> That is called guilt by association, and it is not a valid way of
> determining, well, anything. You are mirroring the tactics of McCarthy,
> and that is not meant as a compliment.
>
> You still have not been able to give one bit of evidence that says Obama
> is a socialist. I suspect that will be difficult for you, since you have
> proven, over and over again, that you really don't have the faintest
> idea of what a socialist is.
>
> Oh yes, your deflection is noted. You ran away from my point that
> calling Obama a socialist isn't hate speech, but is a lie.

But I don't believe it was a lie.

The people that don't believe he is a socialist are making use of newspeak
and don't even know it.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA0E951CE94B0F...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

Ryan has changed since college. Obama is still a closet socialist and if
he is re-elected--he will have more flexibility to show his true beliefs.

[Jason]

In article <e3Cds.2308$Sl4....@fe13.iad>, Caranx latus

In general--I would be in favor but would need to see the details about
each issue before I made the final decision.

For example, environmental protection may mean forcing power companies to
spend billions on pollution control equipment. The power companies would
increase each bill by 20% to 30%. In that case, I would be against it
since middle class and poor people can't afford to pay those types of
bills.

[Caranx latus]

But what if the moon really is made of cheese?

> Glenn Beck is calling it the October surprise.

I can't tell whether he suffers from rabies or whether he's just loud
and monomaniacal.

[Caranx latus]

Evasion rejected again.

Do you not want to answer the question? Or are you simply not
understanding it?

[Caranx latus]

These are principles, not policies. When translated into policies, there
will always be details that not everyone agrees with. However, do you
agree with these principles in general?

[Jason]

In article <WMCds.71989$PB3....@fed02.iad>, Caranx latus

Good news--An important man in the House of Representatives named Darrell
Issa will conduct a hearing to investigate the 7.8% unemployment rate.
It's a breaking story so should be all over the internet tomorrow. I could
only find a couple of websites about the breaking story today:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1376564_Issa_to_investigate_unemployment_numbers.html&page=1&anc=bottom

[Jason]

In article <vOCds.71990$PB3....@fed02.iad>, Caranx latus

I believe they were trustworthy until the last couple of months. I believe
that loyal BLS democrats took some actions to help their hero win the
election. If we did not have an election next month--I doubt that they
would have used GIGO data. I am guessing. I don't know if anyone is guilty
of any crimes.

[Jason]

In article <xUCds.44261$oJ3....@fed07.iad>, Caranx latus

In general--yes--but not if it means middle class and poor people will
have to pay extra money each month.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-11101...@67-150-125-185.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Socialism has a very specific definition. You can look it up. By that
definition, Obama is not a socialist. If you believe he is, then you
are, once again, mistaken. This has been explained to you by me and
others many times, which is why I am saying it is a lie.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-11101...@67-150-125-185.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Stop lying! Socialism has a very definite definition, and if you compare
Obama's policies to that definition, you will see that they do not
match. Therefore, Obama is not a socialist. For you to continue to say
he is shows either that you are incapable of learning or incapable of
telling the truth. Which is it?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-11101...@67-150-125-185.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

[snip]

No, I didn't forget the article. It is just that he has been an absolute
pessimist, and there are dozens of economists, with far better
credentials than his, who disagree with him.

BTW, you really don't have to post the whole article every time.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-11101...@67-150-125-185.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

IOW, you believe they were trustworthy until you didn't like the
results.

BTW, you should know by now that if you say you are guessing, there is a
99.9999999% chance you are wrong, as you are here.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-11101...@67-150-125-185.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Neither you nor anyone else have provided any credible evidence that it
was.

>
> Glenn Beck is calling it the October surprise.

Glenn Beck is a right wing nutbar, who I wouldn't trust if he said the
sun rises in the east.