NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy. During Dubya's nearly four years, nearly 3 million jobs were
lost to the economy. Some 1.1 million jobs allegedly have been returned
to the economy. That leave Bush nearly 2 million jobs in the hole,
compared to the number of jobs created during the Clinton years.


Once again, your numbers are wrong. There have been 1.512 million jobs
created in the last 10 months...even if you use the flawed Payroll
Survey
Data. The number of "lost jobs" never reached 3 million. I believe it
was
2.6 million at its highest. Nearly 1.5 million of those were lost in
the 6
months after 9/11 due to particularly extraordinary circumstances.


You're still using the wrong terms, fella. There was no net job gain as
a result of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration is still in
the "lost jobs" column and will be through the elections. The number of
jobs in this country now is less than it was during the Clinton years,

The number of jobs in this country now is *more* than it was during the
Clinton years is you look at the Household Survey Data.


You can bang on those stats all you want, and they still won't be
credible. The fallacies in those stats are well-known, apparently to
just about everyone except you.

Dave Hall wrote:

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


What possible difrerence would that make to someone like you?

Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you proved
your own fact wrong.

If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end which was
followed by 563 airplane deliveries in 1998, 620 in 1999. They ended the 2
years of job cuts just in time to see the deliveries drop to 489 in 2000.

You also missed this very important quote:
"Boeing and the airlines were already suffering under the weight of a
sluggish economy before two commercial jets destroyed the World Trade Center
Towers last Tuesday, and damaged the Pentagon. A fourth airliner
commandeered by hijackers crashed in Pennsylvania."

Your quote:
"Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was
a result of 9/11."

While an interesting take on the situation, the terrorism was nothing more
than a "final straw" of an already larger problem. Please keep in mind,
Boeing was scheduled to deliver 538 airplane in 2001. This number was only
reduced by 38 in their projections for the year. Taking into account of
"worse case scenario" Boeing projected a reduction of 120 airplanes for
2002.


Congratulations NOYB, you have now learned the lesson of making sure your
facts are correct before sticking your foot in your mouth. Perhaps you would
be interested in location the final outcome of these job losses Boeing
predicted 8 days after the terrorist attacks.

(I'll give you a hint, 36,490 as of November 22, 2003. Boeing had predicted
30,000) Rather interesting side point is that now Boeing is sharing profits
with the remaining work force.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940
Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps
you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


Here's a great article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml

Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush
was
a result of 9/11.

Here's an excerpt:

2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll
from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500.

----------------------------------------------------
Feel better now?

wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you
proved
your own fact wrong.


Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there.



If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end

Sure they did.

Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost
twice that many in 1999 and 2000.

Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright
comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of the
9/11/01 attack.

My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years.
Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for
Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more
about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself,
please don't let me stop you.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

What??? I told you to read a book.



. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim
Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al
Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout.

Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base
of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe
very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the
opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the
war.

I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes".
That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies.


According to people who know these things,

And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"?

Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that?



the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that
feeds the outer network of support for terrorism.

The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every
time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be
tricky.



Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the
book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert
Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no
guarantee that the information contained is either factual or
complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are
either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's
highly spun recent expose.

Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that
of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate?
And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That
implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased
source. Please name or describe one or two.


It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from
other unconnected sources.

Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected
source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean?


Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing
as absolute truth?

Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent?

No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own
evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the
facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack.

You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days when
you weren't quite so predictable!!

By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee
with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance
package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell your
brother about it.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you
proved
your own fact wrong.


Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there.



If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see
that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end

Sure they did.

Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost
twice that many in 1999 and 2000.

Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright
comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of
the
9/11/01 attack.

My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years.
Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for
Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more
about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself,
please don't let me stop you.

wrote in message
nk.net...
No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own
evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the
facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack.

You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days
when
you weren't quite so predictable!!

By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee
with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance
package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell
your
brother about it.


Not in 1999. It was 12 months.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:30:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

What??? I told you to read a book.

Are books not a part of the mass media?




. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim
Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al
Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout.

Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base
of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe
very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the
opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the
war.

I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes".
That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies.


According to your book. But I have not seen much evidence to support
that conjecture. Even if true, it only underscores the fact that the
roots of terrorism are active in most of the middle eastern Islamic
countries, and they are all potential enemies.


Most of my sources claim that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the current
"Home" to Al Qaeda, or at least the main "cell" of it.




According to people who know these things,

And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"?

Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

The answer of course is that you determine based on faith and whatever
information fits your views. Those that are contrary you dismiss as
rubbish, sort of like the stuff Harry posts.

But we all do that to some degree. The difference is that there are
many sources of information. Books are only one small part. Try
talking to some of the people who live or have worked in the region
for their perspective.


the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that
feeds the outer network of support for terrorism.

The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every
time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be
tricky.

Yes it is. But you have to start somewhere.





Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the
book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert
Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no
guarantee that the information contained is either factual or
complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are
either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's
highly spun recent expose.

Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that
of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate?

No one is 100% accurate. But what makes you think that someone who
once worked for the CIA (The same CIA that insisted Iraq had WMD) is
an all-knowing source?


And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That
implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased
source. Please name or describe one or two.

All I'm saying is that you can't base your whole idealogy on the words
of a few (potentially biased) authors. You have to ingest evidence
from a variety of sources before you can make an informed choice.

You also have to remember, writing books is a business. Publishers and
authors alike are pushed to write what will sell and bring in a
profit. That's why many books are jazzed up and sensationalized.
Controversy and bombshell revelations are what sell books. Anyone who
doesn't believe in the theory of style over substance need look no
further than Bill Clinton's book. It'll sell well, but there's little
useful information in it.

Do you think that "reality TV" is actually REAL? The real world of
facts is a rather boring read. To sell things, spice is added. You
just have to be able to determine how many facts were distorted to
make for a more "spicy" story.




It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from
other unconnected sources.

Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected
source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean?

No I don't. I don't believe any ONE source for my information. I cross
check practically everything, and make a judgement call from that.


Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing
as absolute truth?

Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent?

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter?

I'm sure Saddam Hussein will be writing a book in the future. Will you
buy it? Would you be inclined to believe it?

Dave

www.bn.com

It's called a book store.

On the other hand, if you're one of the .02% of the CITIZENS that think,
don't waste your time with LGB or Lurch and the Ambulance Chaser. A couple
years ago it was widely publicized that Iraq had ONE con/thief/deception
artist that was ripping overyone off.

In the US, we're twice as well off - we get a choice of two.