"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
Hey NOYB.......do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? LOL

LOL. I always hold out for that last glimmer of hope, even from the
dimmest of bulbs. Since DSK is slightly dumber than the average dummy,
I'm hoping that is why it's taking longer than usual.

There are some people, like basskisser, who I have totally have given up
on. I'd rather pull a fish out of the Gulf and explain things to the fish.

Yeah, the fish would understand a lot sooner than kevin.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.



What about the bosses?


Nookular Boy said they weren't important. Remember?

They're not important once they're forced into hiding, unable to
communicate with and train the mercenaries.



What makes you think this has been done?

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501554.html

"DSK" wrote in message
...
The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up.

Really?
Let's see what the pros say
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

Hmm, 3.5% which isn't bad, but it darn sure isn't "great." The previous
quarters were less though.

So why are we having layoffs


NOYB wrote:
Jobs going to countries with uneven labor playing fields.

Really? GM is moving jobs to which overseas country?



, huge gov't deficits


Already been asked and answered.


Oh right, you claimed that Bush's tax cuts are going to erase the deficit
someday... funny how that didn't work last time, and the pros don't think
it's going to work this time either...

Shall I use a clip and paste from the wikipedia website link that you posted
here?

" According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by
the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget
Projections), the trend of growing deficits under Bush's first term will
become shrinking deficits in his second term. In this projection the deficit
will fall to $368 billion in 2005, $261 billion in 2007, and $207 billion in
2009, WITH A SMALL SURPLUS BY 2012. "



, dropping the prime rate,


As I said...
To offset the oil spike

How do you explain increased profitability then? Can you cite *any*
economic theory without having it bite you in the butt?

... *and* to create a more level field with our international competitors
who receive government-subsidized loans for cheap.


Hmm, these darn foreign gov't can afford to buy up our debt *and* offer
cheap subsidy loans to businesses stealing our jobs? Wow, we should elect
guys who can do that well.


increasing trade imbalance,


China won't float there currency. It's indexed to the dollar, making it
artificially depressed.

But didn't you say the dollar wasn't depressed?

No.

Can you make more than two statements without contradicting yourself?

Yes. Can you follow a thread?



... Besides being cheaper due to a lowcost labor supply, their stuff
also appears much, much cheaper due to their artificially deflated
currency.


dropping dollar, etc etc?



A depressed dollar is good for helping keep jobs in the US.

But how come jobs are leaving in record rates then?


Cheap labor. Less stringent environmental standards.


... It makes US-made products seem cheaper. Of course, your statement is
erroneous: the dollar has been heading back up against all currencies
except for the yuan.

This week yes, largely due to a panic on the euro.

Why is there panic on the euro? Perhaps because the EU economy is
horrendous?


But the long term trend is certainly down, and the dollar is still
averaging lower than it's been in a long time.

The short term trend is up. These are lagging indicators. The short term
trend is more important for predicting the near-future.


But hey, according to you, the economy is booming!

Not according to just me...but according to the economic indicators that
I've posted here.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economy

Is this just more Democrat propaganda, NOBBY? You'd think they'd have
mentioned a big number like this if it had any basis in fact, especially
if the economy gained more than 1 3/4 million jobs per month last
November & December.


NOYB wrote:
The economy gained almost 3 million new jobs in the last 23 months.

But they said (and the BLS agrees) that as of Aug 2004, the Bush
Presidency had a net loss of jobs.

That was 9 months ago. Today, we have a net gain of jobs.




Hmm, who to believe, NOBBY or the econ pros? What a tough call.

Believe the *CURRENT* BLS statistics.




At the time of the election, the October numbers weren't out yet either.
The net gain/loss when the election took place was roughly even.
However, in the last 8 months (Oct. 2004-May 2005) the economy added
approximately 900,000 new jobs. That's why we stand at a net gain of
900,000 new jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

Shucks, that's barely 100,000 jobs per month. The Clinton economy added
well over 200,000 per month. What gives, NOBBY, is the economy booming or
isn't it?

3.466 million jobs gained in 23 months is an average of 150,000+ jobs each
month.







No wonder you guys all think President Bush has done such a GREAT job on
the economy... 1.75 million jobs per month! WOW!


You obviously don't understand the concept of *net* gains/losses.

You obviously don't understand any concept at all. All you do is parrot
the yay-Bush propaganda, and then look for facts later. Let's see, how
many times has NOBBY contradicted himself in this thread?


None.

Is it a new record?

No. I never contradict myself. It's par for the course.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:24:56 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
t...
Wait a minute, I thought it was over 3 million? Is that pesky math
disability catching up with you again?


NOYB wrote:
3 million in the last 23 months. Negative 2+ million in the first 20
months. That gives a net gain of 900,000 in 53 months.

Math, DSK, math.


But first you said that Bush hasn't lost any jobs, then you said that he'd
caused a net gain of 3 1/2 million. You said the Democrat claims of net
job loss under Bush were all lies.

It *is* a lie to say that there has been a *net* job loss under Bush.



Now you say that he *did* lose jobs, then gain more... and you seem to not
know whether the result is more than 3 million as you first claimed (did
you lie?), or less than 1 million

I've posted the exact numbers on here befo


We're up 3.466 million jobs in the last 23 months. That's 23 straight
months of net jobs *gained*.


Since Bush took office, we've had a total net gain of 839,000 jobs.



So that means there was a net loss of 2.627 million jobs in the first 20
months, and a net gain of 3.466 million jobs in the most recent 23
months...giving us a net gain of 839,000 jobs since Bush first took office
in 2001.

Employment data is a lagging indicator. The first 6-12 months of Bush's
Presidency are a reflection of where the economy was 6 to 12 months earlier.
The next 6-12 months are a reflection of what happened on 9/11. The last 23
months (3.466 million *net* jobs gained) are a reflection of Bush's economic
policies, rather than those of his predecessor.

Got it?

Do you see why I stopped? This is worse than Kevin!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no weapons
moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued his
assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID take
place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a trap.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:38:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

Did you overlook this?
"The Iraq Survey Group's main findings -- that Hussein's Iraq did not
possess chemical and biological weapons and had only aspirations for a
nuclear program".

If he didn't *possess* WMD, how could he have moved them?


The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

What? The ISG couldn't prove a negative? I can't absolutely deny that
you are from a different planet, but then . . . ;-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID take
place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a trap.

It allows the Russians to hide their involvement in helping Saddam build
post-embargo WMD's.




So now it's my turn to ask you a question:
How does this help Syria?

(Hint: Putin just made a trip to Israel. What issue did the Israelis want
to discuss?)