"Jonathan Ganz"
Maxprop wrote:
The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.

"Vito" wrote

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union
electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures
because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.


This has been my busiest year in the last 10 or more. I will end up
working 180 days this year, as opposed to my normal 110 day year.
Plus, my wife and both kids got jobs this year.

Scotty

Glad to hear it!

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

This has been my busiest year in the last 10 or more. I will end up
working 180 days this year, as opposed to my normal 110 day year.
Plus, my wife and both kids got jobs this year.

Scotty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:16:54 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union electricians,
have
been jobless for over two years!

Anecdotes are generally not very persuasive evidence. But I guess you have
to go with what you've got.

You deleted/ignored the important part - that once their unemployment
benefits end, they are no longer part of the unemployment numbers.

Maxprop wrote:
The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

You must be referring to people who mostly get their "facts" from
fascist tub-thumpers shilling for Bush & Cheney.

Most other people in the country have experience either directly, or one
of their friends or family, struggling with long term unemployment or
underemployment.

The fact of the matter is that there are fewer jobs now than in 2000,
when we "were beginning a Clinton-induced recession" according to your
own favorite sources.

Another fact is that families discretionary income is at a low point,
and dropping further.

To the reasonable person, it seems pretty obvious that the "Bush
economy" chiefly benefits the ultra rich and offshore corporations.
Certainly that mega-gazillion dollar defecit is not helping the economy
anywhere near as much as might be expected. And it's been a couple years
now, how long does it take to "kick start" the economy?

DSK

We're all glad to hear it but that has nothing to do with the actual
stats. Many, many people are hurting because of Bush's policies.
And there was no reason for it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Vito" wrote

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union
electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures
because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.


This has been my busiest year in the last 10 or more. I will end up
working 180 days this year, as opposed to my normal 110 day year.
Plus, my wife and both kids got jobs this year.

Scotty

Well, I agree.. if that's all you have, which is all you have, then you
gotta
go with it. The fact (and truth) remains that we have had negative job
growth since Bush took office.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:16:54 -0400, "Vito" said:

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union electricians,
have
been jobless for over two years!

Anecdotes are generally not very persuasive evidence. But I guess you have
to go with what you've got.

BTW, if you've been following the news you'll note that the Chicago Fed
just
published a paper shooting down the last of the gloom and doom folks'
arguments--that the jobs being created are concentrated in the low-paying
sectors.

I bet that argument works really well in your fantasy world, but it
has nothing to do with truth.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:26:10 -0400, "Vito" said:

Anecdotes are generally not very persuasive evidence. But I guess you
have
to go with what you've got.

You deleted/ignored the important part - that once their unemployment
benefits end, they are no longer part of the unemployment numbers.

OK, I'll modify it. Anecdotes about 3 or 4 friends who are no longer part
of
the unemployment numbers aren't very persuasive evidence.

"Vito" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Ganz"
Maxprop wrote:
The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

Gotta agree with Jon on that one. Several friends, union electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.

Tell them to load of their trucks and head to Florida Alabama ect.
They can find all the work they can handle. But since they are union
guys that kind of work my not be worthy.

The job market is coming back ....slowley. The only thing I heard
Kerry say that I like is he want's to cut off tax breaks for companies
that are moving jobs overseas. However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas. I do know
dumbass short sighted bean counters encourage that because in the
short run they can save tonns of money. In the long run it a
disasterious move for white collar positions.

Joe

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:39:44 -0700, Joe wrote:



However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas.

Overlook the part about tax deferred foreign profits?

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00121.html

In article ,
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:39:44 -0700, Joe wrote:



However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas.

Overlook the part about tax deferred foreign profits?

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00121.html

Joe overlooks a lot of things.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:00:33 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:39:44 -0700, Joe wrote:



However I can not find any tax breaks
anywhere on the books that pays to move jobs overseas.

Overlook the part about tax deferred foreign profits?

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00121.html

What Joe meant to say was that he had not found any thing written on
the subject in Guns & Ammo or Hustler:)

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Unfortunately, you're right about the unemployment line... but it's
getting so long that there's not much point in getting in it.

The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised if
we're very near that figure now.

Max

"Vito" wrote in message


Several friends, union electricians, have
been jobless for over two years! They don't show up in the figures
because,
like 1000s of others, their unemployment benefits have ran out.

Union members waiting to be called up at the hiring halls comprise a
significant percentage of the total of unemployed skilled and semi-skilled
laborers. That's why my son-in-law discarded his union card and went to
work for a private company. Union labor is considered too costly by many
employers.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

We're all glad to hear it but that has nothing to do with the actual
stats. Many, many people are hurting because of Bush's policies.
And there was no reason for it.

Exactly what policies would those be?

Max

What you said:
He's being
criticized for perhaps being a bit economical with the truth in getting some
of them and then using them to get out of the combat zone.
Now, I take the term: economical with the truth, as meaning he at best with
held the truth, or was an out and out liar at worst. Either case calls into
question how medals were awarded inViet Nam, and I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone. Go here.
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not responsive to the question.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:11:29 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

If you do, you question each and every medal given under said process. So
you also call into question the names and sacrifices of those names on
the
wall and in all past wars and conflicts. You have questioned , by proxy,
such awards as Sgt, Yorks medal of honor, Gary Brenemens Purple heart,
and
so on. Not a very patriotic thing to do in my book.
"Dave" wrote in message
...
I don't think that's what I said but feel free to try to demonstrate
otherwise.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised if
we're very near that figure now.


I can't believe you're that old. When I was in High School, full
employment was when unemployment was at 4.5%. Today it's considered
5.5%, which is what we have right now.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

I know you wouldn't be suprised. If the election were held today, a lot
of people would be suprised, but a lot of people wouldn't.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Unfortunately, you're right about the unemployment line... but it's
getting so long that there's not much point in getting in it.

The current unemployment rate just dropped from 5.5% to 5.4%. The avg.
unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was 5.8%. Doesn't
wash.
People are beginning to tune Kerry out when he talks about the
horrendous
unemployment rate. They don't believe him any more.

It's easy to cite facts but not the truth. Yes, the UER just dropped
0.1%. However, it was completely due to people dropping off the
employment rolls not due to job growth. 144K people found jobs. But
the economy needs about 150-200K to break even on job loss/job
creation.

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised
if
we're very near that figure now.

Max

When Horass was in High School, he was still racing for fags, I mean flags.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

When I was a kid, 3% unemployment was considered "full employment." Some
people simply aren't employable for any number of reasons. I don't know
what the basement unemployment rate is today, but I wouldn't be surprised
if
we're very near that figure now.


I can't believe you're that old. When I was in High School, full
employment was when unemployment was at 4.5%. Today it's considered
5.5%, which is what we have right now.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 18 Sep 2004 12:51:11 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:35:51 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone.

And the basis of your knowledge in this area is??????

Not that anything will influence your "open minded" perspective on the
matter, but feel free to rely on the hearsay of those who were either
not present or are now contradicting their past statements, all of
which you describe as "new evidence".

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_5273.shtml

The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were
followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star,
Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy
memo.
Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review
of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of
Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for
the release of additional records documenting the Democratic
presidential candidate's military service.

Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an
investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo
obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a
full-scale probe.

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the
Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards
approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent
Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were
properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they
correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving
these awards."

Dave wrote:
.... I
don't believe anyone has claimed that proper procedures weren't followed in
awarding the medals.

Oh really?

DSK

.... I
don't believe anyone has claimed that proper procedures weren't followed in
awarding the medals.

Oh really?


Dave wrote:
Yes, really.

Then what was all that stuff about how Kerry was really a coward and a
traitor and he really didn't earn those medals and he lied about it and
it was only scratch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...????

DSK

That's right! Bush is a liar. You are a poodle.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:25:38 -0400, DSK said:

.... I
don't believe anyone has claimed that proper procedures weren't
followed in
awarding the medals.

Oh really?


Dave wrote:
Yes, really.

Then what was all that stuff about how Kerry was really a coward and a
traitor and he really didn't earn those medals and he lied about it and
it was only scratch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...????

DSK

Had nothing to do with the procedures. The best of procedures will be
undermined if those providing the input are untruthful.

"Horvath" wrote in message

I can't believe you're that old.

Believe it. Full employment, in 1965, was 3%, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

Max

And at the end of the Clinton presidency, it was a bit over 4 percent.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Horvath" wrote in message

I can't believe you're that old.

Believe it. Full employment, in 1965, was 3%, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

Max

Then what was all that stuff about how Kerry was really a coward and a
traitor and he really didn't earn those medals and he lied about it and
it was only scratch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...????


Dave wrote:
Had nothing to do with the procedures. The best of procedures will be
undermined if those providing the input are untruthful.

Let me get this straight- you are claiming that all the bull**** attacks
on Kerry's Viet Nam War record are all truthful & honest & totally
uncoordinated with the Bush-CHeney campaign.... *AND* they are in no way
reflective that Kerry's medals were awarded totally within the context
of a correct & honest procedure?

I'm sorry, my brain just cannot bend that far. Black is not white and
water runs downhill.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Come now, Doug, I'm sure you can get your brain around this one. Procedure
is the steps taken before reaching a decision--e.g. reading the documents on
which the decision is to be based, sometimes (though not always) talking to
one or more witnesses, etc. Saying that the proper procedure was followed
simply means the people making the decision went through those steps. It
says noting about the accuracy or reliability of the documents read, or the
truthfulness of those people, if any, who were talked to.

Well, here's the problem. You're claiming that the Navy, in following
the proper steps to verify the accuracy of reports used to determine
medal awards, did everything right... this BTW includes reports from the
some of the same people from Swift Boat Veterans For Slander.

Then you turn around and say that it *must* be totally accurate fact to
say that Kerry lied to get medals he didn't deserve, acted like a
coward, etc etc.

Surely you see that this is irreconcilable. Either one is true, or the
other.

Black is white. Ignorance is Strength!

DSK

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:32:51 -0400, DSK wrote:

Then what was all that stuff about how Kerry was really a coward and a
traitor and he really didn't earn those medals and he lied about it and
it was only scratch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...????


Dave wrote:
Had nothing to do with the procedures. The best of procedures will be
undermined if those providing the input are untruthful.

Let me get this straight- you are claiming that all the bull**** attacks
on Kerry's Viet Nam War record are all truthful & honest & totally
uncoordinated with the Bush-CHeney campaign.... *AND* they are in no way
reflective that Kerry's medals were awarded totally within the context
of a correct & honest procedure?

I'm sorry, my brain just cannot bend that far. Black is not white and
water runs downhill.

DSK

It is always a bit difficult to understand Dave's obscure little
questioning of the facts, but I believe he is dancing around the
absurd claim of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush that the initials "KJW"
on the after action reports *really* indicate that Kerry, with the
initials "JFK" wrote up all the after action reports. Now, of course,
35 years later and with the benefits of all this "new evidence"
provided by folks who weren't there, those "Kerry" reports need to be
re-written...preferably by the RNC, who, as we all know, were REALLY
not in the area at the time.

I hope that helps clear up your confusion:)

On 20 Sep 2004 11:08:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:44:53 GMT, felton said:

It is always a bit difficult to understand Dave's obscure little
questioning of the facts, but I believe he is dancing around the
absurd claim of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush that the initials "KJW"
on the after action reports *really* indicate that Kerry, with the
initials "JFK" wrote up all the after action reports. Now, of course,
35 years later and with the benefits of all this "new evidence"
provided by folks who weren't there, those "Kerry" reports need to be
re-written...preferably by the RNC, who, as we all know, were REALLY
not in the area at the time.

I hope that helps clear up your confusion:)

I'll admit you have a rich imagination.

Another post from Dave "clarifying" his obscure little point(less)
barbs. Are you in charge of drafting the "fine print" in legal
disclaimers? You would be well suited for such a task given your
vague and evasive style. Pointless and dull.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Nothing inconsistent here.

Wow, talk about understatement.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave wrote:
Nothing inconsistent here, assuming that by "did everything right" you mean
correctly followed the procedures established for such things.

Umm, yeah. That is pretty much exactly what the Navy was trying to say.

DSK

If that is the best you can do, I am done with this thread. As I said, read
this:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:35:51 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone.

And the basis of your knowledge in this area is??????

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:16:10 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

If that is the best you can do, I am done with this thread. As I said, read
this:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:35:51 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone.

And the basis of your knowledge in this area is??????

Yes. When it's clear you have no basis for your conclusion it's best to
simply give up before making a greater fool of yourself.

A person who represents, has a fool for a client. :-)


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:16:10 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

If that is the best you can do, I am done with this thread. As I said, read
this:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:35:51 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:

I have never known a medal
to be awarded on the word of the recipiant alone.

And the basis of your knowledge in this area is??????

Yes. When it's clear you have no basis for your conclusion it's best to
simply give up before making a greater fool of yourself.

A person who represents himself, has a fool for a client. :-)

I hate typos....

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

A person who represents, has a fool for a client. :-)


he who leaves key words out of quote, look like bigger fool.

Doug,

That saying is from a Plummer to his helper, Goes " All you need to know
is, **** runs downhill, pay day's Friday."

Used it many,many times getting Mechanics to do things the way I wanted
it done.

Ole Thom

Dave,

Procedures aren't always wrong. More often than not they provide a
conclusion made with truth an honesty.

Thirty years is a very long time to let a HERO have his glory and then
say he lied.

I believe Kerry was a hero and G.W. Bush was a draft dogger with help in
high places.

Ole Thom

There ain't no gettin' away from the facts of life!

Thom Stewart wrote:
Doug,

That saying is from a Plummer to his helper, Goes " All you need to know
is, **** runs downhill, pay day's Friday."

Used it many,many times getting Mechanics to do things the way I wanted
it done.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I believe Kerry was a hero and G.W. Bush was a draft dogger with help in
high places.

I think Kerry was a hero with a tendency to exaggerate his own heroism. As
to Bush, my recollection of the times leads me to agree that he probably had
some help from politicos in getting into the Guard. However, I reserve the
term "draft dodger" for those like Clinton who dishonestly avoided entirely
any risk of being placed in harm's way in the service of their country.

Well, there you have it folks... Here's the choice. Kerry a war hero
who might or might not have exaggerated his actions or Bush, someone
who got into the Guard because he had powerful friends and who failed
to show up as ordered for his physical. Leave it to Dave to bring
Clinton back into the discussion to obfuscate Dave's willingness to
pick a spoiled brat fratboy who didn't do as ordered over a decorated
war hero.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

A person who represents, has a fool for a client. :-)


he who leaves key words out of quote, look like bigger fool.

Next time use English.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."