Ignoring your slimeball tactic for a moment, your MSBC link says this:
Quote:
Some 2.5 million salary earners and 5.5 million hourly employees would lose their overtime, according to the estimates by the group, which is affiliated with labor unions.
(emphasis added)
Maybe you could link to the AFL-CIO again.
And as for your BBC link, here's an example of the blatant bias and inaccuracy of the article:
Quote:
In fact, nearly all the mainline churches in America oppose this war, including Mr Bush's own church, the United Methodists.
You edited your post after I posted my response...adding the MSNBC and BBC links. Your original post was:
You then criticized my response and mocked it because it critcized your links.
Honestly, I think that's about the most dishonest tactic I've seen used on this board in four years.
Well maybe if you hadn't been sitting there with your hands poised above the keys ready to pounce this wouldn't have happened because your response happened in under a min.
You gootta be kidding on this one. I think your calling me a ( insert body part name ) was the worst most desperate thing I've seen on this board in 4 years. And you got away with it to. I know you apologized ( many weeks later ) but it still wasn't too nice.
Also if those links that I added didn't exist you'd have a point.
This one's just stupid but I think he's aiming at getting the thread closed. You do get it don't you that there were lots of links to pick from?
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
My .02
I thought you left the boards?!?!
I remember almost getting banned when I celebrated . . . all the nights spend carousing in joy at the loss of wasted thread-space . . .
oh well . . .
BTW: we know your tactics: just keep saying whatever way beyond the time it was resoundingly shown to be either wrong or unrelated until people simply stop responding . . .
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
My .02
There was nothing questionalble about my tactics. What is questionable is running out of ideas so then you find a flimsy excuse to attack someone.
I remember almost getting banned when I celebrated . . . all the nights spend carousing in joy at the loss of wasted thread-space . . .
oh well . . .
BTW: we know your tactics: just keep saying whatever way beyond the time it was resoundingly shown to be either wrong or unrelated until people simply stop responding . . .
uhoh . . I feel a PM coming
Um, in case you HAVEN"T been paying attention. I essentially said was I would trying to be more positive and meaningful content to these boards. I don't think that I have even joined any other thread on AO.
Besides, I started this thread and feel that I can comment on it for that reason.
Um, in case you HAVEN"T been paying attention. I essentially said was I would trying to be more positive and meaningful content to these boards. I don't think that I have even joined any other thread on AO.
Besides, I started this thread and feel that I can comment on it for that reason.
Sorry that I coused you a premature celebration.
You said you'd be posting but not in AO. " See you around elsewhere " or something like that.
I said I was going to try to add more meaningful and positive content to the threads that I do participate in.
I started this thread so I have decided to reserve the right to comment if I choose.
Does this meet with your approval?
That's not even close to what you said. You did imply that we might see you in those other threads. That was the implication. Everybody thought that. You know what you said.
If you're going to do the " You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore " bit you have to stick with it awhile. He did.
Well maybe if you hadn't been sitting there with your hands poised above the keys ready to pounce this wouldn't have happened because your response happened in under a min.
You gootta be kidding on this one. I think your calling me a ( insert body part name ) was the worst most desperate thing I've seen on this board in 4 years. And you got away with it to. I know you apologized ( many weeks later ) but it still wasn't too nice.
Also if those links that I added didn't exist you'd have a point.
I happened to be on the board at the same time you were. You edited your post 15 minutes later. Give me a break.
As for whatever I called you, why is it necessary to bring that up? I'll tell you why: Because you cannot argue on the merits...and therefore the only tactic you have left is personal criticism. BTW, you're now acting in the same manner that caused me to use the word I did.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you come after Naples and me, you cannot change the fact that the US economy is now in strong growth and recovery. That's what this thread is about, jimmac.
I happened to be on the board at the same time you were. You edited your post 15 minutes later. Give me a break.
As for whatever I called you, why is it necessary to bring that up? I'll tell you why: Because you cannot argue on the merits...and therefore the only tactic you have left is personal criticism. BTW, you're now acting in the same manner that caused me to use the word I did.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you come after Naples and me, you cannot change the fact that the US economy is now in strong growth and recovery. That's what this thread is about, jimmac.
About the 15 min. now you're lieing.
Why do I bring that up? Because when you get that goodie two shoes tact to your arguments I have to remind you that you're not really that way at all.
What do you think calling me that name and now talking to me in a patronizing manner as if you were talking to a child ( and listen bucko I was an adult long before you were ) is?
So you didn't like commentary from a black congressman?
You didn't even comment on the MSNBC or the BBC link other than to add some personal bias. What if they're right about the mainline churches being against the war?
And SDW there are many more than that.
You consistantly blame other people for tactics you use yourself.
You've run out of arguments and now you've turned this into a personal attack. I guess you really want to get this thread closed or me banned ( you'd love that ) so you won't have to listen to the truth any more.
So I guess for now there's no talking to you. I suggest other's do the same.
What do you think calling me that name and now talking to me in a patronizing manner as if you were talking to a child ( and listen bucko I was an adult long before you were ) is?
So you didn't like commentary from a black congressman?
You didn't even comment on the MSNBC or the BBC link other than to add some personal bias. What if they're right about the mainline churches being against the war?
And SDW there are many more than that.
You consistantly blame other people for tactics you use yourself.
You've run out of arguments and now you've turned this into a personal attack. I guess you really want to get this thread closed or me banned ( you'd love that ) so you won't have to listen to the truth any more.
So I guess for now there's no talking to you. I suggest other's do the same.
jimmac,
I am only trying to argue on the merits. I do my best to refrain from personal attacks. I challenge arguments vehemently, especially when they're based on pure rhetoric or questionable links and facts. I am not the one who constantly refers to things like my age to bolster my argument.
I did address your links. They don't support your argument for many reasons, one of which is blatant bias. Another is that the one study conducted and cited aws done by a group associated with a labor union. Prior to this you linked to the AFL-CIO. Surely you can understand why I attack these links.
The point of this thread is to discuss the economy. You have failed to cite sufficient evidence to support your claims of the "worst unemployment since WWII" and the "deepest recession since WWII". You haven't even come close.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah of course my links are bad.
Seriously jimmac...you can't dodge this one. You've used links that are totally without merit. By doing so, you actually hinder your own argument.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Seriously jimmac...you can't dodge this one. You've used links that are totally without merit. By doing so, you actually hinder your own argument.
So which link are bitching about MSNBC?
However I think when you're talking about dodging you're really looking in the mirror.
Originally posted by jimmac
So which link are bitching about MSNBC?
However I think when you're talking about dodging you're really looking in the mirror.
You edited your post after I posted my response...adding the MSNBC and BBC links. Your original post was:
Yeah of course my links are bad.
You then criticized my response and mocked it because it critcized your links.
Honestly, I think that's about the most dishonest tactic I've seen used on this board in four years.
Some 2.5 million salary earners and 5.5 million hourly employees would lose their overtime, according to the estimates by the group, which is affiliated with labor unions.
(emphasis added)
Maybe you could link to the AFL-CIO again.
And as for your BBC link, here's an example of the blatant bias and inaccuracy of the article:
In fact, nearly all the mainline churches in America oppose this war, including Mr Bush's own church, the United Methodists.
Troll.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You edited your post after I posted my response...adding the MSNBC and BBC links. Your original post was:
You then criticized my response and mocked it because it critcized your links.
Honestly, I think that's about the most dishonest tactic I've seen used on this board in four years.
Well maybe if you hadn't been sitting there with your hands poised above the keys ready to pounce this wouldn't have happened because your response happened in under a min.
You gootta be kidding on this one. I think your calling me a ( insert body part name ) was the worst most desperate thing I've seen on this board in 4 years. And you got away with it to. I know you apologized ( many weeks later ) but it still wasn't too nice.
Also if those links that I added didn't exist you'd have a point.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ignoring your slimeball tactic for a moment, your MSBC link says this:
(emphasis added)
Maybe you could link to the AFL-CIO again.
And as for your BBC link, here's an example of the blatant bias and inaccuracy of the article:
Troll.
This one's just stupid but I think he's aiming at getting the thread closed. You do get it don't you that there were lots of links to pick from?
Originally posted by jimmac
This one's just stupid but I think he's aiming at getting the thread closed. You do get it don't you that there were lots of links to pick from?
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
My .02
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
My .02
I thought you left the boards?!?!
I remember almost getting banned when I celebrated . . . all the nights spend carousing in joy at the loss of wasted thread-space . . .
oh well . . .
BTW: we know your tactics: just keep saying whatever way beyond the time it was resoundingly shown to be either wrong or unrelated until people simply stop responding . . .
uhoh . . I feel a PM coming
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you could be honest with yourself and everyone here, you would admit your tactics are questionable. I have seen them many times, an I think I am not alone when I say that.
My .02
There was nothing questionalble about my tactics. What is questionable is running out of ideas so then you find a flimsy excuse to attack someone.
I thought you said you were gone from AO also?
Originally posted by pfflam
I thought you left the boards?!?!
I remember almost getting banned when I celebrated . . . all the nights spend carousing in joy at the loss of wasted thread-space . . .
oh well . . .
BTW: we know your tactics: just keep saying whatever way beyond the time it was resoundingly shown to be either wrong or unrelated until people simply stop responding . . .
uhoh . . I feel a PM coming
Um, in case you HAVEN"T been paying attention. I essentially said was I would trying to be more positive and meaningful content to these boards. I don't think that I have even joined any other thread on AO.
Besides, I started this thread and feel that I can comment on it for that reason.
Sorry that I coused you a premature celebration.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, in case you HAVEN"T been paying attention. I essentially said was I would trying to be more positive and meaningful content to these boards. I don't think that I have even joined any other thread on AO.
Besides, I started this thread and feel that I can comment on it for that reason.
Sorry that I coused you a premature celebration.
You said you'd be posting but not in AO. " See you around elsewhere " or something like that.
Originally posted by jimmac
There was nothing questionalble about my tactics. What is questionable is running out of ideas so then you find a flimsy excuse to attack someone.
I thought you said you were gone from AO also?
You thought wrong.
I said I was going to try to add more meaningful and positive content to the threads that I do participate in.
I started this thread so I have decided to reserve the right to comment if I choose.
Does this meet with your approval?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You thought wrong.
I said I was going to try to add more meaningful and positive content to the threads that I do participate in.
I started this thread so I have decided to reserve the right to comment if I choose.
Does this meet with your approval?
That's not even close to what you said. You did imply that we might see you in those other threads. That was the implication. Everybody thought that. You know what you said.
If you're going to do the " You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore " bit you have to stick with it awhile. He did.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well maybe if you hadn't been sitting there with your hands poised above the keys ready to pounce this wouldn't have happened because your response happened in under a min.
You gootta be kidding on this one. I think your calling me a ( insert body part name ) was the worst most desperate thing I've seen on this board in 4 years. And you got away with it to. I know you apologized ( many weeks later ) but it still wasn't too nice.
Also if those links that I added didn't exist you'd have a point.
I happened to be on the board at the same time you were. You edited your post 15 minutes later. Give me a break.
As for whatever I called you, why is it necessary to bring that up? I'll tell you why: Because you cannot argue on the merits...and therefore the only tactic you have left is personal criticism. BTW, you're now acting in the same manner that caused me to use the word I did.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you come after Naples and me, you cannot change the fact that the US economy is now in strong growth and recovery. That's what this thread is about, jimmac.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I happened to be on the board at the same time you were. You edited your post 15 minutes later. Give me a break.
As for whatever I called you, why is it necessary to bring that up? I'll tell you why: Because you cannot argue on the merits...and therefore the only tactic you have left is personal criticism. BTW, you're now acting in the same manner that caused me to use the word I did.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you come after Naples and me, you cannot change the fact that the US economy is now in strong growth and recovery. That's what this thread is about, jimmac.
About the 15 min. now you're lieing.
Why do I bring that up? Because when you get that goodie two shoes tact to your arguments I have to remind you that you're not really that way at all.
------------------------------------------------------------
" tactic you have left is personal criticism. "
------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think calling me that name and now talking to me in a patronizing manner as if you were talking to a child ( and listen bucko I was an adult long before you were ) is?
------------------------------------------------------------
" Because you cannot argue on the merits "
------------------------------------------------------------
Because you didn't agknowlege my links?
So you didn't like commentary from a black congressman?
You didn't even comment on the MSNBC or the BBC link other than to add some personal bias. What if they're right about the mainline churches being against the war?
And SDW there are many more than that.
You consistantly blame other people for tactics you use yourself.
You've run out of arguments and now you've turned this into a personal attack. I guess you really want to get this thread closed or me banned ( you'd love that ) so you won't have to listen to the truth any more.
So I guess for now there's no talking to you. I suggest other's do the same.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis..._unemployment/
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...cing/index.htm
At least you have no excuse to kill the messenger...
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/22/pf/h...jobs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis..._unemployment/
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...cing/index.htm
At least you have no excuse to kill the messenger...
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/23/mark...bush/index.htm
Don't kill the messenger......
What are you guys trying to prove?
The economy is bad for almost 4 years and now it's getting better again. Do you really think that's going to save Bush?
There are many other issues that aren't doing as well as the economy.
Originally posted by jimmac
About the 15 min. now you're lieing.
Why do I bring that up? Because when you get that goodie two shoes tact to your arguments I have to remind you that you're not really that way at all.
------------------------------------------------------------
" tactic you have left is personal criticism. "
------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think calling me that name and now talking to me in a patronizing manner as if you were talking to a child ( and listen bucko I was an adult long before you were ) is?
------------------------------------------------------------
" Because you cannot argue on the merits "
------------------------------------------------------------
Because you didn't agknowlege my links?
So you didn't like commentary from a black congressman?
You didn't even comment on the MSNBC or the BBC link other than to add some personal bias. What if they're right about the mainline churches being against the war?
And SDW there are many more than that.
You consistantly blame other people for tactics you use yourself.
You've run out of arguments and now you've turned this into a personal attack. I guess you really want to get this thread closed or me banned ( you'd love that ) so you won't have to listen to the truth any more.
So I guess for now there's no talking to you. I suggest other's do the same.
jimmac,
I am only trying to argue on the merits. I do my best to refrain from personal attacks. I challenge arguments vehemently, especially when they're based on pure rhetoric or questionable links and facts. I am not the one who constantly refers to things like my age to bolster my argument.
I did address your links. They don't support your argument for many reasons, one of which is blatant bias. Another is that the one study conducted and cited aws done by a group associated with a labor union. Prior to this you linked to the AFL-CIO. Surely you can understand why I attack these links.
The point of this thread is to discuss the economy. You have failed to cite sufficient evidence to support your claims of the "worst unemployment since WWII" and the "deepest recession since WWII". You haven't even come close.
Originally posted by jimmac
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/23/mark...bush/index.htm
Don't kill the messenger......
What are you guys trying to prove?
The economy is bad for almost 4 years and now it's getting better again. Do you really think that's going to save Bush?
There are many other issues that aren't doing as well as the economy.
That's quite the iron clad prediction.