You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Here are some facts to recall when you get in the argument about fiscal policies ...


Quote:

Before we provide the final totals (We did this by turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site), let's run down how each president did. Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

(Can we take time out here to say how surprised we are that Eisenhower, who presided over the "happy" 1950s, managed an anemic half-percent job growth per year, while Jimmy "Malaise" Carter finished second with 3.45 percent annual job growth?)

Now for the totals. If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ents-create-mo/


For those who don't know, Politifact does not come out of the left-wing, liberal talking points media. So don't believe what you're told when that ol' attack line is used against the facts. Politifact is totally non-partisan and certainly does not march lockstep in line with the right-wingnut smear machine (you know, the one now calling Shirley Sherrod "Shirley Charade"). It is a Pulitzer Prize winning website created specifically to fact check relevant statements by politicians from any party. It can be heard reporting on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" hosted by former Republican Congressman (class of '94 and Gingrich's Contract With America) Joe Scarborough though it doesn't seem welcome on Fox News. Read the "TruthO'Meter" and see why.

http://traxel.com/deficit/

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Politifact is totally non-partisan . . .

Politifact is a great site. One of the few sources on the Internet that can be trusted.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010

"But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance

... the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations ...

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Editorial
What They

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

The New York Times? How gay.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

"Lamont Sanford", how consistently gay-bashing.

Great comeback, LS. You're a "thinker", you are.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

"I love my dead gay son!"

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

Looking at the raw data - which might still be revised somewhat but which stands at the moment within a 12 month database ...

"Compensation costs for civilian workers increased 1.8 percent for the 12-month period ending June 2010."

Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 1.9 percent for the 12-month period ...

Compensation costs for State and local government workers increased 1.8 percent for the 12-month period ... "

Compare that to "Productivity" ...
"Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 2.8 percent
annual rate during the first quarter of 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today, with output rising 4.0 percent and hours rising
1.1 percent. (All quarterly percent changes in this release are seasonally
adjusted annual rates.) From the first quarter of 2009 to the first
quarter of 2010, output increased 3.0 percent while hours fell 3.0
percent, yielding an increase in productivity of 6.1 percent (tables A,
and 2). This gain in productivity from the same quarter a year ago was the
largest since output per hour increased 6.1 percent over the four-quarter
period ending in the first quarter of 2002."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

Now, compare that to "Corporate Profits" ...
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/corpprof.htm

Most everything above put together as one single graph ...
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/28/business/28wages_chart.html

Benefits compensation is also down across the board when compare to profits ...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t12.htm

Consumer debt has fallen slightly as people with jobs are paying off more debt and saving slightly more than in previous years ...
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/

This is a double edged sword as consumer debt had been the driving force of the pre-recession economy. Now, with fewer people spending, there is less demand for goods (except at the higher end of sales which are actually increasing) which spells trouble for the future economic outlook. With less demand, fewer workers will be required to maintain those high "Corporate Profits". Always a glass half full/glass half empty affair here.

Finally, The NASDAQ composite has remained relatively stable since rebounding from late 2008 lows ...
http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/nasdaq/

Those companies whose earnings exceeded expectations have surpassed those which did not so corporate earnings are good on average ...
http://www.nasdaq.com/

Now, if only they would go ahead and invest their reserves ...
"Flush with $1.8 trillion, corporate America sits on the sidelines"
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/07/15/flush-with-1-8-trillion-corpora te-america-sits-on-the-sidelines/

American workers are working either longer hours with fewer workers to do the work while getting paid the same (or less when benefits are compared to rising consumer costs) as when times were (supposedly) good. Or, people are working fewer hours with more time off and work to do sitting undone while the workers accept fewer benefits and lower total, inflation adjusted wages while doing the same amount of work. It's an employer's market by anyone's estimation with the fact you have a job being a prime motivator to the worker. A far cry from the last years of Clinton when I was selling to college graudates with their $40-60k sign on bonuses due to a shortage of skilled workers and corporations willing to pay top dollar to those who qualified basically just by breathing. For all but the top 2-5%, things are rough while, with record low interest rates on credit, that top 2% have few if any worries beyond where to take that second vacation or how to add another parking space to their four car garage or to just buy another house with a bigger garage.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
"This is the first time since the Depression that unemployment has stayed above 9 percent for two consecutive years."
John Boehner on Sunday, August 1st, 2010 in an interview on "Fox News Sunday"


Quote:
" ... any way you look at it, Boehner's statistic was wrong. We rate his statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...xceeded-9-perc/

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
A bill to cap carbon emissions "could cost Ohio 100,000 jobs."
Rob Portman on Friday, August 6th, 2010 in a television campaign ad


Quote:
Factcheck.org turned to the same in-depth study by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, that backers and detractors of Waxman-Markey were citing at the time. The EIA analyzed 11 different sets of assumptions, every one of which showed there would be fewer jobs in 2030 with the Waxman-Markey bill than without.

But "only the most severely pessimistic set of assumptions" produced job losses on the scale cited by the manufacturers, and now repeated by Portman. And remember, that was the worst case scenario from two groups that tend to support big business

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Hayes retells myth that Reagan ended recession with tax cuts
Stephen Hayes criticized the Obama administration's response to the recession by reviving the myth that President Reagan ended the 1981 recession by cutting taxes. In fact, economists have said that the recession was ended under Reagan primarily due to federal interest rate cuts.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008020068

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Yesterday I heard Limbaugh make a statement, the same one I've heard from him on numerous occasions. To sum it up as closely as I can remember it goes, "Show me any place where there are financial troubles and I (Limbaugh) will show you a Union at the heart of it all."

I've been looking but I can't seem to find an proof of any Union being in existence at AIG, Lehman, Bank of America, etc. Does anyone know which Union the derivatives traders would have belonged to?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

This has been posted elsewhere in this Open Bar section but I thought it worth repeating assuming not everyone can make it beyond the vulgarities of Lamont.

Why any Consitutional challenge to the health care "mandate" will fail. Case Law;

Quote:

JACOBSEN v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905)
In 1796, a British doctor discovered a vaccine for smallpox, which was a deadly disease. In 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law forcing everyone in the city to receive a smallpox vaccination. Henning Jacobsen refused to be vaccinated and was charged with violating the law. At his trial, Jacobsen offered evidence that the vaccination did not really protect people against smallpox. He also offered evidence that he and his son experienced harmful reactions to vaccinations. The trial court rejected Jacobsen's evidence and convicted him.

Jacobsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that forcing him to be injected with a vaccine violated his liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Jacobsen said it violated the "right of every freeman to care for his own body and health" and was "nothing short of an assault upon his person." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed Jacobsen's conviction. The Court said liberty does not prevent the government from deciding how people should take care of their health.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/whalen-v-roe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Herd immunity"; http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1...ssachusetts.pdf

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

The Orange Worm squirms - and refuses to answer a direct question; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv8lXO9u3Jo

"Funny accounting"? John, do you mean like not funding Medicare Part "D" while telling us it would only cost $700 billion (all in borrowed money) yet at the same time you were threatening to fire the CBO accountant who tried to warn us the final cost would be more like $3 trillion over ten years? And you still managed to screw both the Medicare participants and the taxpayers?! Or, do you mean the process whereby the Republicans waged two unfunded, under equipped and ill managed foreign wars - all not accounted for in the year to year budgets for seven years at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lifes destroyed by your greed and hubris? Now that's "funny accounting", JB.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08sun3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

Republican Trickie Dickie, the gift that keeps on proving "be careful what you wish for".

Do click on the audio link.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Go West young gay couples, go West ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

6'10" in, bless her little pea-pickin' heart, she just couldn't bring herself to say on camera a Republican President nominated a faggot to the Bench - That's why he's biased for godssake!!!

And that's the best the Republicans have to offer on anything. Where's the emoticon for bursting into tears over what's happened to reasoned discourse in this Country?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

What time is it, Bullwinkle?

Time to check the "Truth-O-Meter", Rockie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Last year, we spent $456 billion on Medicare, and it is the fastest growing major government program. How likely is it that the people protesting Obama's Medicare cuts will stand with Republicans if they propose cutting that program even more to balance the budget? They will switch sides in an instant. The elderly will fight anyone who tries to cut their benefits even as they hypocritically demand fiscal responsibility and rant about the national debt. The elderly are the reason why we have a national debt.

Unfortunately, the ranks of the elderly are rising. In 1980, those over age 65 constituted 11.3% of the population. Today they represent 13%, a figure that will rise to 16% in 2020 with the aging of the baby boomers and increasing longevity, 19.3% in 2030 and 20% in 2040, according to Census Bureau projections.

Furthermore, the elderly are a rising portion of the electorate. Back when Medicare was established, those over 65 constituted 15.8% of voters. Last year, they made up 19.5%. This is due to the rising percentage of elderly in the population and their increasing propensity to vote. In 2008, 72% of those between the ages of 65 and 74 reported voting while only 48.5% of those between the ages of 18 and 24 did.

When I raised these facts with a prominent Republican recently, he countered that Reagan had cut spending. But he didn't. Spending rose from 21.7% of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983 before declining to 21.2% in 1988. And that improvement came about largely because favorable demographics caused entitlement spending to temporarily decline from 11.9% of GDP in 1983 to 10.1% in 1988. (Last year it was 12.5% of GDP.)

When I noted these facts, my friend pointed to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as someone who showed that spending could be slashed. But she raised spending from 42.4% of GDP when she took office in 1979 to 46% of GDP in 1985. Only in her last years in office was spending cut to 38% of GDP. But keep in mind that Thatcher was in office for 10 years, longer than a U.S. president may serve, and had compete control of Parliament the whole time--something Reagan could only dream about.

In short, there is no evidence that it is politically possible to cut spending enough to make more than a trivial difference in our nation's fiscal problems. The votes aren't there and never will be. Those who continue to insist otherwise are living in a dream world and deserve no attention from serious people.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action andImpostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is available for pre-order:The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Jan, hows your priaprism and Alzheimers?

you still telling kids to get off your lawn? May I interest you in some AARP?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Jurisdiction
Legal Advice for Jurisdiction. Legal Help from Local Attorneys.
RequestLegalHelp.com
The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers that are independent of the federal and state governments.

Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...ction&type=

If an "illegal" is not under the jurisdiction of the US government or the individual state by way of being within the boundaries of the US or a state, what right is claimed by the US government or the state to arrest and try the "illegal"?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Fox News contributor and host of Fox Business' new libertarian show Judge Andrew Napolitano said over the weekend that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should have been indicted over their administration's conduct around Guant
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

If someone trying to tell you about all those people "who pay no taxes"? Show them this; http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22287.html


Quote:
"How big are taxes in America?" ...

One way of showing how important different taxes are to different Americans is to group everyone into five equal groups known as "income quintiles" and show how much in taxes each pays. Each one of those groups contains 20 percent of the U.S. population ...

Using those five income groups, Figure 2 asks the following question: "Out of every dollar of tax paid by households, how many pennies go to each type of tax

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

If they tell you US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world, show them this; http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Recovery Progress Report:
As of August 11, $426.1 billion of the $787 billion stimulus has been committed to states; $275.2 billion has been paid out.
http://www.cspan.org/stimulus/


Quote:
GOP declares stimulus a 'failure' From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Republican National Committee declares the stimulus a "failure" ...


Quote:
" ... if we keep doing the same things, we're going to get the same dismal results ..." National Response to Presidential Radio Addressby Congressman Charles Djou on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 1:30pm http://www.facebook.com/notes/congressma...144428845590348

Yet the largest portion of the Stimulus Bill has gone to tax cuts and tax benefits; http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/18/business/20100818_Stimulus_graphic.html?ref=business

So when the Republicans ask, "Where are the jobs?", tell them doing the same ol' thing (tax cuts) didn't bring them.

While much of the Stimulus monies have been allocated much is yet to be awarded; http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Where money has flowed to states for "shovel ready" jobs their unemployment is reported as; http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/18/business/20100818_Stimulus_graphic.html?ref=business

Despite taking Federal $$$'s, the Republicans can't see the new State Highway for the ideological blinders they are wearing.


Quote:
Leery of Washington, Alaska Feasts on Its Dollars Published: August 18, 2010
PALMER, Alaska
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

How Much Stimulus Funding is Going to Your County?
http://projects.propublica.org/recovery

Eye on the Bailout
http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout

Bailout Recipients
http://bailout.propublica.org/list/index

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan had an epiphany. His Treasury Secretary informed him that Reagan
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need
Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Is it fact or fiction that over 700 Muslims failed to show up for work at or around the World Trade Center on 9/11?

It seems to always be: "Who knew, and when did they know it?"

There are a number of interesting parallels that can be drawn into this argument. New Yorkers will figure it out.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 days ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

I have my theories down, but I'm not happy to discuss politics on the web.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
Is it fact or fiction that over 700 Muslims failed to show up for work at or around the World Trade Center on 9/11?

It seems to always be: "Who knew, and when did they know it?"

There are a number of interesting parallels that can be drawn into this argument. New Yorkers will figure it out.

Jim, that one's beneath you.

Perhaps you'd be interested in the "4,000 Jews didn't show up for work on 9/11" lie as part of the fantasy?

Seriously, now.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Why ask, Jim? First, you could actually find out for yourself rather than sticking things in your head which are the basis of hatred and ditrust. Second, it is a fact that US Government offficials were not flying commerical aircraft on and around 9-11. Make what you will of that given your preferred party was in power and, if you think that is a low blow, then consider your original question. Finally, you are trying to distract from the fact presented in the post.

Here's the fact, in case you couldn't make it all the way through a post critical of Fox News. They are ginning up hatred and bigotry by reporting what "might" happen. Not what has happened that can be proven or disproven. They are staking their ground on who "might" contribute monetarily to a cause they see as grist for their rumormill. Most importantly, they are demonizing this imam for a possible association they have not proven and cannot prove. They are only showing you the picture of the person they wish you to see as the face of evil while ignoring the fact the person they are saying "might" contribute to the imam is the second largest investor in Fox News. They are not telling you vital information but instead they are feeding you guilt by possible association while leaving out their complicity in the matter. They are not telling you the whole story. They are not telling you about the Saudi Prince's associations with GWB or that GWB chose this imam to head Department of State goodwill tasks. Try to think that if this Saudi Prince is bad and this imam is bad, then GWB must be bad and he was also not flying commercial airliners on 9-11 (). Got that connection, Jim?

Jim, I began this thread to present facts with as much truth as I can find. I'm not going to discuss this absurd idea of yours or go any further with this issue of who might contribute and who might be evil based upon the misinformation you wish to place in your head. If you prefer to remain ignorant of facts and believe you are better off not letting proof get in the way of your thinking, then you can stay that way for all I care. I didn't begin this thread to change anyone's mind and I know there are some minds that will never be changed no matter what fact is presented. Some people prefer to simply not know and to find guilt in possible associations.

If you have contrary facts to what has been presented, then show your facts. I'm hoping that is how this thread will operate and we won't be dragged through the crap of the insults which work their way into any political thread. Present contrary facts or please do not comment and certainly do not use rumors you have seen on the internet to disparage an entire religion or group of people.

http://www.colbertnation.com/home (terror bunker 5200)

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
US Government offficials were not flying commerical aircraft on and around 9-11

How's that anymore ridiculous than 700 Muslims not showing up for work at the World Trade Center?

A lot of government officials showed up for work at the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. The death and casualties lists prove this much. You're trying to tell us no government officials got on planes on or before September 11, 2001?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Until and unless those who wish to grasp the essentials of religious bigotry devote some study to the 'Holy Books' that are foundation for all kinds of fundamentalism, endless arguments of the kind conducted here are pointless. For instance (and I could quote the Old Testament with equal force here ) examine this passage from the Koran Sura 3: V:7 -10.
"O our Lord! For the day of whose coming there is not a doubt, thou wilt surely gather mankind together. Verily, God will not fail the promise.
As for the infidels, their wealth, and their children, shall avail them nothing against God, They shall be fuel for the fire.
After the wont of the Pharoah, and of those who went before them, they treated our signs as falsehoods, Therefore God laid hold of them in their sins; and God is severe in punishing!
Say to the infidels: ye shall be worsted, and to Hell shall ye be gathered together; and wretched the couch!"

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Duplicate post removed.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
How's that anymore ridiculous than 700 Muslims not showing up for work at the World Trade Center?

Ooooooooooh! you make my head hurt.


Quote:
Why ask, Jim? First, you could actually find out for yourself rather than sticking things in your head which are the basis of hatred and ditrust. Second, it is a fact that US Government offficials were not flying commerical aircraft on and around 9-11. Make what you will of that given your preferred party was in power and, if you think that is a low blow, then consider your original question.

But, since you asked ...


Quote:
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml


Quote:
You're trying to tell us no government officials got on planes on or before September 11, 2001?

No, you fucking idiot! I'm not trying to to tell you that and anyone with a nano-smithereen of common sense should be able to figure that much out. However, since you put it that way, do you think all Government Officials were flying Government aircraft on or about 9-11? It is a "fact" they were not. Got it? See how this game works? Lamont, how many games of checkers have you lost to a gerbil?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need


Quote:
do you think all Government Officials were flying Government aircraft on or about 9-11?

So now it is all government officials flying government aircraft on or about September 11, 2001? I don't get it.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

It's really not difficult to see how Fox News gets away with it.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml


Quote:
A new study shows that super-rich candidates who personally bankroll their own campaigns almost always lose.

Sam Pizzigati:

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Well, which is it? No government officials boarded commercial flights on September 11, 2001 or was it no government officials flew government aircraft on September 11, 2001? Jesus wants to know.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

Jesus and Gomez are busy cutting lawns. Ask 'em when they're done.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Hard (as possible) facts you might need

That's stereotyping Latinos.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading