• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US economy adds 288,000 jobs in June

Well I'm too drunk to go into the minutinae of the discussion so I'll leave it be.

But Pingy is a Good person on this board.

And while, DA60, you and I disagree very much on this board I have gained a New Respect for you Recently. Just putting that out for you.

Thanks, you too.


Good day.
 
Not to me - but to most it seems to be...so it is an effective source at making a point.
And you don't see a problem with condemning a source and refusing to accept it when others use it, but using it yourself, without mentioning that you don't believe it to be true because it's biased, when it supports your point?

If I could have found the average hours of part time workers - I obviously would have used them.
I don't doubt it.


Why don't you make yourself useful and post them then?
Because you've made it quite clear you won't accept anything I post from BLS.



I will ask again, you called John Williams of ShadowStats.com a liar.
No, I didn't. if you want to get technical, as you seem to do when it's your words, I neither called him a liar nor wrote that he was lying. Nor did I speak to his intent. My exact words were "That's untrue. It's a lie John Williams of Shadowstats likes to tell."
The claim that discouraged workers were removed from the official statistics in 1994 is untrue...a lie. If you want to get specific, Mr. Williams does not explicitly say that they were removed, but that impression can be reached by someone not paying attention to the word parsing. Williams states that "This time qualification defined away the bulk of the discouraged workers. Adding them back into the total unemployed, unemployment in line with common experience, as estimated by the SGS-Alternate Unemployment Measure, " The key phrase here is "adding them back into the total unemployed..." is extremely misleading as they were never taken out of the total unemployed because they were never in.

So to slightly correct myself: The idea that discouraged workers were removed from the official definition under Clinton is untrue, and so easily demonstrably untrue that anyone claiming it has reckless disregard for the truth. John Williams, while not explicitly stating that discouraged were removed, phrases his criticism and his alternate measures in such a way that many could, and in my experience have, easily interpreted that as his meaning.. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that Williams has ever tried to be explicit that discouraged were not removed.
 
And you don't see a problem with condemning a source and refusing to accept it when others use it, but using it yourself, without mentioning that you don't believe it to be true because it's biased, when it supports your point?
Nope, under the circumstances.

Because you've made it quite clear you won't accept anything I post from BLS.

Promises, promises.


No, I didn't. if you want to get technical, as you seem to do when it's your words, I neither called him a liar nor wrote that he was lying. Nor did I speak to his intent. My exact words were "That's untrue. It's a lie John Williams of Shadowstats likes to tell."

'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive'


Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

To lie requires intent.

Therefore you cannot know he lied without knowing his intent...yet you claimed - matter-of-factly - that he lied.

Yet, unless he told of his intent, you cannot know it.

So, I will ask again:

Where is your proof that John Williams of ShadowStats.com deliberately intended to deceive and thus lied?


Jeez...just 'man up' and admit you went too far.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Nope, under the circumstances.



Promises, promises.




'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive'


Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

To lie requires intent.

Therefore you cannot know he lied without knowing his intent...yet you claimed - matter-of-factly - that he lied.

Yet, unless he told of his intent, you cannot know it.

So, I will ask again:

Where is your proof that John Williams of ShadowStats.com deliberately intended to deceive and thus lied?


Jeez...just 'man up' and admit you went too far.

:rolleyes:
Are you being intellectually dishonest, or ignorant? Neither is good form. Your forgot definition #3:

lie

noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
 
'lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive'


Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

To lie requires intent.

Therefore you cannot know he lied without knowing his intent...yet you claimed - matter-of-factly - that he lied.
I never said he lied. I said the claim he repeated was a lie, and then clarified that he never explicitly repeated the claim.

I know the claim, that discouraged workers were removed from the definition of unemployed in 1994 is untrue. By definition 3 of your own source, a false statement is a lie. Even if someone innocently believes a false statement and repeats it with no ill intent, the statement is still a lie. Otherwise you have the case where Person A lies and says X. Person B believes A and repeats X, thinking it to be true. By what you're saying, X is a lie when A says it but not when B says it, even though it's the exact same statement. No. One can say that A is lying and B is repeating a lie, but the statement itself is still a lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom