Unemployment rate drops to 7.4%

[AmazonTania]

Gee, Rshermr...I notice that not once in that nonsense did you deny claiming to have taught college economics as an undergrad. Funny how when I simply point out how ridiculous your claim is that I'm resorting to "lying and personal attacks". Then you make yourself truly absurd by doing it in a post that is nothing but personal attacks.

Rshermr implied that Qatar, UAE, Cyprus were not industrialised nations. Don't know if I've ever been taught that in my years as an undergrad.

 

[AmazonTania]

I want these to be full time and higher paying jobs. That's a goal worth pushing for.

How is that working out for you?

 

[Rshermr]

I really don't care about this off topic nonsense, so your words are wasted on me. Its amusing how verbose you can be on everything, except the subject matter, which is usually economics. Stick to being at being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Discussing BLS metrics isn't your cup of tea.

Funny when you get caught lying in your posts, it is off topic.

Its off topic because what equipment is used for turning crude into gas is clearly not relevant, not has any relation to the topic.

Grow up



What exactly do you think I did in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-10.html#post7654211

In was discussing the consistent underreporting of JOLTS numbers relative to the CES.

Also, what do you call what I did in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-11.html#post7660317

I outlined the M/M job reporting from both the CES and JOLTS, and showed how this large divergence is larger than its ever been in 5 years and the large amount ever.

I know you don't believe anything was discussed because when economic matters are discussed, it flies right over your head.

You simply put them into a self made chart, and call it truth. As does every con web site. As does moveon. But you do so with AGENDA, as do those agenda driven web sites. Which makes your posts of NO value. And which is why people with integrity bring forward articles from sites not agenda driven.

My going to take the time to figure out what that poorly constructed sentence meant. I'm just going to concentrate on the word AGENDA, simply because its in all capital letters.

Usually, those who cannot think for themselves have the biggest agenda. That's pretty much YOU in a nutshell.

And why economists opinions matter. And why my opinion, and yours, do not.

LMAO only economist opinions matter. Not those in the financial industry, Not entrepreneurs, not money market makers, not researchers, producers, consumers, analyst or people who are greatly effected by policies these economist support.

Spoken like mindless drone who never can think for ones self. Maybe you're so uneducated that you cannot decipher economic data for yourself, but many of us are not.

Its off topic because what equipment is used for turning crude into gas is clearly not relevant, not has any relation to the topic.

Grow up

The subject, me poor forgetful con tool, was that you lied. Which I proved again. And you simply run from it. There was no reason to discuss oil tankers being used to refine oil, me dear, when you originally did so. None at all. It was YOUR choice. Not mine. And it was your choice to lie about it. But, it is no big deal as far as I am concerned. That is just how you operate.
Most grown ups, me dear, do NOT LIE.

My going to take the time to figure out what that poorly constructed sentence meant. I'm just going to concentrate on the word AGENDA, simply because its in all capital letters.

Uh, try to read what you just said. Anyone who wrote that should not criticize anyone's English.

What I said was clear enough. In short, you post charts based on your agenda, like agenda driven web sites. Which makes anything you say subject to question. Simple.

Usually, those who cannot think for themselves have the biggest agenda. That's pretty much YOU in a nutshell.

No, me dear. That would be your opinion. I know you are angry, you never like getting caught lying, and you will go on and on and on to avoid facing it. But those who lie, as you do, are no longer believable.
I simply try to argue based on truth. I have no other agenda. You are a con. You ALWAYS come at things with that agenda. As you admitted.

Then, you make this leap in stating what I said:

LMAO only economist opinions matter. Not those in the financial industry, Not entrepreneurs, not money market makers, not researchers, producers, consumers, analyst or people who are greatly effected by policies these economist support.

What do you think, amazon. That everyone simply believes what you post. Jesus. The operant word in that last sentence of your was ONLY. As in you said that I made the statement that only the opinion of economists matter. The word only was not in my statement. I simply said my opinion, or your opinion does not matter. But the opinion of economists does. I believe that a number of people have opinions that matter. But try to understand this, me dear. I believe those people most who have the most knowledge about a subject. And anyone without an agenda who is studying a subject has an opinion that matters. Assuming that that opinion is based on fact. So, why lie and say I said that only the opinion of economists matter. I never said that. I never believed that. And that concept is STUPID.
Here is the thing, amazon. I just REALLY DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Because, you see, THAT IS LYING. VERY DISHONEST. AND A SIGN OF A PERSON WHO IS UNABLE TO HAVE RATIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

S

poken like mindless drone who never can think for ones self. Maybe you're so uneducated that you cannot decipher economic data for yourself, but many of us are not.

I can decipher economic data just fine, thank you. But whatever. People who lie, in my opinion, do not matter. Just are not of any import. And you lie. A lot.

 

[Rshermr]

Gee, Rshermr...I notice that not once in that nonsense did you deny claiming to have taught college economics as an undergrad. Funny how when I simply point out how ridiculous your claim is that I'm resorting to "lying and personal attacks". Then you make yourself truly absurd by doing it in a post that is nothing but personal attacks.

Rshermr implied that Qatar, UAE, Cyprus were not industrialised nations. Don't know if I've ever been taught that in my years as an undergrad.

Amazon, can you ever make a statement where you do not lie. Please bring forth the post where I said those countries are not industrialized nations.
What I said, of course, as you well know, is that they are not MAJOR industrialized nations. Which is why they are not one of the nations included in oecd. As anyone who looks at international economic issues is very well aware of. Back to your bat shit crazy con sites. No use learning anything.
What is it like to be able to lie with no conscience???

 

[Oldstyle]

Gee, Rshermr...I notice that not once in that nonsense did you deny claiming to have taught college economics as an undergrad. Funny how when I simply point out how ridiculous your claim is that I'm resorting to "lying and personal attacks". Then you make yourself truly absurd by doing it in a post that is nothing but personal attacks.

Rshermr implied that Qatar, UAE, Cyprus were not industrialised nations. Don't know if I've ever been taught that in my years as an undergrad.

Amazon, can you ever make a statement where you do not lie. Please bring forth the post where I said those countries are not industrialized nations.
What I said, of course, as you well know, is that they are not MAJOR industrialized nations. Which is why they are not one of the nations included in oecd. As anyone who looks at international economic issues is very well aware of. Back to your bat shit crazy con sites. No use learning anything.
What is it like to be able to lie with no conscience???

Ah, Tommy? You're one of the biggest bullshit artists ON this board! You asking that is like Anthony Weiner asking how to sext or A-Rod asking how to juice.

 

[Rshermr]

Did someone say something. Oh, well, if so, he was just one of those mentally deficient folks who simply troll around making personal attacks. But what can you expect. Mental retardation is a serious problem. And those that exhibit those traits often end up working in the dish washing business, or something similar. Never able to have a real life. So, they have to lie a lot. To make people think they know something.
They do not, however, succeed. Because mental retardation is really easy to spot. Except for them. But it is important to remember. It is NOT their fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon, can you ever make a statement where you do not lie. Please bring forth the post where I said those countries are not industrialized nations.
What I said, of course, as you well know, is that they are not MAJOR industrialized nations. Which is why they are not one of the nations included in oecd. As anyone who looks at international economic issues is very well aware of. Back to your bat shit crazy con sites. No use learning anything.
What is it like to be able to lie with no conscience???

First of all, OECD has nothing to do with industrialization. The OECD is merely an economic alliance of 34 cooperating countries committed to promoting democracy and market economies. That's all. And just so you know, an industrialised nation is a nation with an economy which generates more wealth than the agrarian sector of the economy. That's really basic stuff.

Also, there is no such thing as MAJOR industrial nations. If anything, majority of the nations among the OECD are post industrial which means the service sector generates more wealth than the industrial sector. Even then, there are plenty of countries in the world which meet this requirement of a post-industrial nation who are not members of the OECD.

And as for your 'claim' stating that the countries you have mentioned are not 'MAJOR industrialized nations,' that is false. No such words were said:

Your chart is for all countries. Mine was of Industrialized Nations included in OECD. Not sure why you are at all concerned about the non industrialized nations. But whatever. Even in your graph, from the misery index, 44 of the roughly 60 nations paid higher taxes (total taxes, that is) than the US did. So, which of those 17 countries with lower rates are you suggesting we should emulate?? If you are assuming we have oil revenues per capita of UAE or Quatar, you are dreaming. Maybe Cypress. Or the USSR. Maybe Macedonia or Kazakhstan? See yet why analysts pretty much always compare us to the industrialized nations of the world??

Again, both my source and yours proved that taxes in this country are low. Even the misery index, which includes countries with no industry to speak of, shows the us in the lower 25% in terms of taxes paid. Sorry, you are doing that same strange thing that you do. Making authoritative statements that fly in the face of the evidence presented. Even your own evidence.

So my chart had 'non industrialised nations listed?' So by not MAJOR industrialised nations, you mean 'no such industry to speak of?' I don't know if you are very inept, or you just believe everyone else is.

On top of your further ignorance, you have misspelled Qatar and Cyprus, and you referred to Russia as the USSR. I wasn't aware the world was still in mist of the Cold War. And just so you know, Russia has a Post Industrial economy, as well as the United Arab Emirates (barely).

 

[AmazonTania]

The subject, me poor forgetful con tool, was that you lied. Which I proved again. And you simply run from it. There was no reason to discuss oil tankers being used to refine oil, me dear, when you originally did so. None at all. It was YOUR choice. Not mine. And it was your choice to lie about it. But, it is no big deal as far as I am concerned. That is just how you operate.
Most grown ups, me dear, do NOT LIE.

I'm sure calling what I said (whatever I said) lies makes you feel better about your shortcomings.

Uh, try to read what you just said. Anyone who wrote that should not criticize anyone's English.

What I said was clear enough. In short, you post charts based on your agenda, like agenda driven web sites. Which makes anything you say subject to question. Simple.

Everyone in the financial industry creates their own charts. Economist, Analyst, Investors, Bankers, Statisticians, Researchers, Scholars, Brokers, etc.

I guess they all have their agenda too. That's some interestingly flawed logic there.

No, me dear. That would be your opinion. I know you are angry, you never like getting caught lying, and you will go on and on and on to avoid facing it. But those who lie, as you do, are no longer believable.
I simply try to argue based on truth. I have no other agenda. You are a con. You ALWAYS come at things with that agenda. As you admitted.

I'm the one who is angry but you are the one falsely labeling me, calling me names and claiming I have 'an agenda' of some kind.

LMAO. Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is 'my agenda?'

What do you think, amazon. That everyone simply believes what you post. Jesus.

Most people I've encountered do. Comes with the ability to formulate coherent and well structured arguments.

The operant word in that last sentence of your was ONLY. As in you said that I made the statement that only the opinion of economists matter. The word only was not in my statement. I simply said my opinion, or your opinion does not matter. But the opinion of economists does. I believe that a number of people have opinions that matter. But try to understand this, me dear. I believe those people most who have the most knowledge about a subject. And anyone without an agenda who is studying a subject has an opinion that matters.

Anyone you disagree with is either a con and 'has an agenda.' You're really not fooling anyone.

Assuming that that opinion is based on fact.

Again, someone who doesn't understand that opinions and facts are antonyms.

So, why lie and say I said that only the opinion of economists matter. I never said that. I never believed that. And that concept is STUPID.

Then maybe you shouldn't have said it.

Here is the thing, amazon. I just REALLY DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Because, you see, THAT IS LYING. VERY DISHONEST. AND A SIGN OF A PERSON WHO IS UNABLE TO HAVE RATIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

Yeah, calling me names, labeling me and then claiming I have 'motives' of some kind. Very rational. Again, you are better off being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Not someone who can actually have a discussion.

I can decipher economic data just fine, thank you. But whatever. People who lie, in my opinion, do not matter. Just are not of any import. And you lie. A lot.

I'm sure saying I lie makes you feel better about your short comings.

 

[Rshermr]

The subject, me poor forgetful con tool, was that you lied. Which I proved again. And you simply run from it. There was no reason to discuss oil tankers being used to refine oil, me dear, when you originally did so. None at all. It was YOUR choice. Not mine. And it was your choice to lie about it. But, it is no big deal as far as I am concerned. That is just how you operate.
Most grown ups, me dear, do NOT LIE.

I'm sure calling what I said (whatever I said) lies makes you feel better about your shortcomings.

Uh, try to read what you just said. Anyone who wrote that should not criticize anyone's English.

What I said was clear enough. In short, you post charts based on your agenda, like agenda driven web sites. Which makes anything you say subject to question. Simple.

Everyone in the financial industry creates their own charts. Economist, Analyst, Investors, Bankers, Statisticians, Researchers, Scholars, Brokers, etc.

I guess they all have their agenda too. That's some interestingly flawed logic there.



I'm the one who is angry but you are the one falsely labeling me, calling me names and claiming I have 'an agenda' of some kind.

LMAO. Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is 'my agenda?'



Most people I've encountered do. Comes with the ability to formulate coherent and well structured arguments.



Anyone you disagree with is either a con and 'has an agenda.' You're really not fooling anyone.



Again, someone who doesn't understand that opinions and facts are antonyms.



Then maybe you shouldn't have said it.

Here is the thing, amazon. I just REALLY DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Because, you see, THAT IS LYING. VERY DISHONEST. AND A SIGN OF A PERSON WHO IS UNABLE TO HAVE RATIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

Yeah, calling me names, labeling me and then claiming I have 'motives' of some kind. Very rational. Again, you are better off being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Not someone who can actually have a discussion.

I can decipher economic data just fine, thank you. But whatever. People who lie, in my opinion, do not matter. Just are not of any import. And you lie. A lot.

I'm sure saying I lie makes you feel better about your short comings.

So, tanya says:

I'm the one who is angry but you are the one falsely labeling me, calling me names and claiming I have 'an agenda' of some kind.

LMAO. Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is 'my agenda?'

I did not say you had an agenda. You did. And you said that I did to. And, me dear, really. You admit you have an agenda and then pretend you do not know what it is??? Right.

So, I said:

Quote:
The operant word in that last sentence of your was ONLY. As in you said that I made the statement that only the opinion of economists matter. The word only was not in my statement. I simply said my opinion, or your opinion does not matter. But the opinion of economists does. I believe that a number of people have opinions that matter. But try to understand this, me dear. I believe those people most who have the most knowledge about a subject. And anyone without an agenda who is studying a subject has an opinion that matters.
To which you say:

Anyone you disagree with is either a con and 'has an agenda.' You're really not fooling anyone.

Your response has NOTHING to do with what I said. Again, me dear, dishonesty is bad form. I just pointed out that you were lying. Which you were. I never said ONLY ECONOMISTS. I called out no specific person or organization as having a site. But you did say you have an agenda.
Anyone who reads your posts knows you do. And, there are many web sites that have obvious agendas. Pretending that they do not, or even that some economists do not, is just plain stupid. But saying only economists opinions matter is a lie.4
Then tania, incapable of telling the truth for any period of time, tries the following:
I posted the following:
"So, why lie and say I said that only the opinion of economists matter. I never said that. I never believed that. And that concept is STUPID."
to which tania said:

Then maybe you shouldn't have said it.

Nice. I gave you my quote. It proved that i did not say only the opinion of economists matter. It proved that you had made it up. It proved that you lied. You see, tania, if I had said what you said I did, you would have brought that quote different. But you lied. And you doubled down by lying again. So, now, should I not call a liar a liar. You totally lack integrity. Jesus, you are a case.

So, tania, you apparently believe putting words in my mouth is just fine. And you will not admit to saying that you do have an agenda. But you did.

 

[Rshermr]

So, tanya:

It was not just I that stated that you had an agenda. You admitted it YOURSELF. And you said that I did to. And, me dear, really. You admit you have an agenda and then pretend you do not know what it is??? Right.

So, I said:

Quote:
The operant word in that last sentence of your was ONLY. As in you said that I made the statement that only the opinion of economists matter. The word only was not in my statement. I simply said my opinion, or your opinion does not matter. But the opinion of economists does. I believe that a number of people have opinions that matter. But try to understand this, me dear. I believe those people most who have the most knowledge about a subject. And anyone without an agenda who is studying a subject has an opinion that matters.
To which you say:

Anyone you disagree with is either a con and 'has an agenda.' You're really not fooling anyone.

Your response has NOTHING to do with what I said. Again, me dear, dishonesty is bad form. I just pointed out that you were lying. Which you were. I never said ONLY ECONOMISTS. I called out no specific person or organization as having an agenda. But you did say you have an agenda.
Anyone who reads your posts knows you do. And, there are many web sites that have obvious agendas. Pretending that they do not, or even that some economists do not, is just plain stupid. But saying only economists opinions matter is a lie.
Then tania, incapable of telling the truth for any period of time, tries the following:
I posted the following:
"So, why lie and say I said that only the opinion of economists matter. I never said that. I never believed that. And that concept is STUPID."
to which tania said:

Then maybe you shouldn't have said it.

Nice. I gave you my quote. It proved that i did not say only the opinion of economists matter. It proved that you had made it up. It proved that you lied. You see, tania, if I had said what you said I did, you would have brought that quote forward to prove that I had said what you want me to have said. But you lied. And you doubled down by lying again. So, now, should I not call a liar a liar. You totally lack integrity. Jesus, you are a case.

So, tania, you apparently believe putting words in my mouth is just fine. And you will not admit to saying that you do have an agenda. But you did.[/QUOTE]
So, tanya says:

I'm sure calling what I said (whatever I said) lies makes you feel better about your shortcomings.

You know what you said. No need to explain it. And no, tania, no one likes to try to have discussions with people who lie. Because it means that you are incapable of believing anything they say. And because they waste your time. Your little jabs about shortcomings are typical of your type. What type, you ask? The type of person who lies trying to make people think they are very profound, or very smart, or very knowledgeable.
If you can not make your point with rational data from rational sources, you are a clown. If you make up your own charts to prove your point, when there are actual well funded organizations doing that same thing without a known agenda, then you are a fool. And if you have to lie to get your point across, then you are immaterial.
I know well my shortcomings. Too bad you have no concept of your own. Because they are many and varied.

Then tania says:

Everyone in the financial industry creates their own charts. Economist, Analyst, Investors, Bankers, Statisticians, Researchers, Scholars, Brokers, etc.

I guess they all have their agenda too. That's some interestingly flawed logic there.

Uh, was that meant to be meaningful?? Indeed they do, in the areas of their own expertise. This is not about anyone making charts, except you, and others like you who have admitted and generally obvious agendas. And no, the link is obviously backwards. I hardly said that anyone who makes a chart has an agenda. That is you, again, trying to put words in my mouth. I do not, by the way, do that to you. If i did, I would apologize. (look the word up). Any rational person knows that you can lie with statistics. Happens all the time. And those organizations with obvious agendas do it constantly. And, since you admit you have an agenda, I suspect that you may well try to say something with stats that is untrue.
Now, I have proven you lie. and you admit to having an agenda. So, why would I want to see your graphs??? Obviously I do not. I choose the cbo, or other rational organizations who's analysis is not likely to be agenda based. Most have no problem understanding that. Sorry you do.

 

[AmazonTania]

I did not say you had an agenda. You did. And you said that I did to. And, me dear, really. You admit you have an agenda and then pretend you do not know what it is??? Right.

So what is my agenda, since you know me so well.

Your response has NOTHING to do with what I said. Again, me dear, dishonesty is bad form.

Of course it has nothing to do with what you said. Just a mere observation that everyone who tends to disagree with you obviously has an agenda of some sort. It's a rather odd position to take...

I just pointed out that you were lying. Which you were. I never said ONLY ECONOMISTS. I called out no specific person or organization as having a site. But you did say you have an agenda. Anyone who reads your posts knows you do.

Well, what is my agenda?

And, there are many web sites that have obvious agendas. Pretending that they do not, or even that some economists do not, is just plain stupid. But saying only economists opinions matter is a lie.4

Mission

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor is the principal Federal agency responsible for measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the economy. Its mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate essential economic information to support public and private decision-making. As an independent statistical agency, BLS serves its diverse user communities by providing products and services that are objective, timely, accurate, and relevant.

Vision

The Bureau of Labor Statistics will meet the information needs of a rapidly changing U.S. and global economy by continuously improving its products and services, investing in its work force, and modernizing its business processes.

OMG! THE BLS HAS AN AGENDA!

Nice. I gave you my quote. It proved that i did not say only the opinion of economists matter. It proved that you had made it up. It proved that you lied. You see, tania, if I had said what you said I did, you would have brought that quote different. But you lied. And you doubled down by lying again. So, now, should I not call a liar a liar. You totally lack integrity. Jesus, you are a case.

Your sentence was badly phrased. If you don't want people to misinterpret what you say, perhaps you should take English lessons.

It's a good per-requisit for basic finance.

So, tania, you apparently believe putting words in my mouth is just fine. And you will not admit to saying that you do have an agenda. But you did.

An agenda is defined as a plan, outline or goal. Everyone has an agenda. We can't all be like you and hang out on an internet forum all day.

You know what you said. No need to explain it. And no, tania, no one likes to try to have discussions with people who lie. Because it means that you are incapable of believing anything they say. And because they waste your time.

I'm a waste of time, and you don't like having discussions with me, yet you've probably given me more time than any other person on this forum. That's some more very interestingly strange logic. I don't know how this can make sense to you. No, I do not know what I said which was a lie. I know you probably believe it was a lie, because you have 'an agenda' to paint me as a liar. I guess that makes you as bad as the people you have mocked.

I'm really waiting for you to actually be a man of your word and put me on ignore as you have said you've done, since I'm a waste of time and all. I'd ignore you myself, but I do it myself however you are not that big of a threat.

Your little jabs about shortcomings are typical of your type. What type, you ask? The type of person who lies trying to make people think they are very profound, or very smart, or very knowledgeable.
If you can not make your point with rational data from rational sources, you are a clown. If you make up your own charts to prove your point, when there are actual well funded organizations doing that same thing without a known agenda, then you are a fool. And if you have to lie to get your point across, then you are immaterial.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone making their own charts, so long as the data is correct and sourced properly. It doesn't matter who you are or what school of thought you subscribe to. It doesn't matter if you're the Dali lama or the Uni-bomber. Facts are facts, and no one is going to stop presenting them just so you can feel better.

Get over yourself.

I know well my shortcomings. Too bad you have no concept of your own. Because they are many and varied.

I know my shortcomings. None of them involve you ever getting the best of me. Sorry, that's never going to happen. Your ignorance is so profound that hell would freeze over before I'd let that happen.

Uh, was that meant to be meaningful?? Indeed they do, in the areas of their own expertise. This is not about anyone making charts, except you, and others like you who have admitted and generally obvious agendas. And no, the link is obviously backwards. I hardly said that anyone who makes a chart has an agenda. That is you, again, trying to put words in my mouth. I do not, by the way, do that to you. If i did, I would apologize. (look the word up). Any rational person knows that you can lie with statistics. Happens all the time. And those organizations with obvious agendas do it constantly. And, since you admit you have an agenda, I suspect that you may well try to say something with stats that is untrue.

Again, there is nothing wrong with anyone making their own charts, so long as the data is correct and properly sourced. If you had the intellect and training, you could be able to make your own charts. And I would immediately know if your charts are wrong, because I am trained to do research for my particular field. Your issue is that you can't understand the data you are looking at. Also, your issue is that you have terrible at research.

Must suck to be you...

Now, I have proven you lie. and you admit to having an agenda. So, why would I want to see your graphs??? Obviously I do not. I choose the cbo, or other rational organizations who's analysis is not likely to be agenda based. Most have no problem understanding that. Sorry you do.

CBO analysts can be confident that their work is relevant and that it will be noticed. In contrast to other settings where analysts write for narrow and specific audiences, at CBO the analysts study the substance of the Congressional agenda, and our work is read and discussed by Members of Congress, staff members, reporters in the popular press, writers in the scholarly press, and policy observers across the country. I was in the audience at a recent conference on telecommunications policy when I heard several speakers cite my most recent report. One corporate official told me he had sent the work to his company’s board of directors.

Wow, the CBO has an agenda too. Shocker...

Also, you didn't have anything to say about me pointing our your ignorance about the OECD and Industrialised nations, so I'm going to assume you are wrong since you are too afraid to address it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did someone say something. Oh, well, if so, he was just one of those mentally deficient folks who simply troll around making personal attacks. But what can you expect. Mental retardation is a serious problem. And those that exhibit those traits often end up working in the dish washing business, or something similar. Never able to have a real life. So, they have to lie a lot. To make people think they know something.
They do not, however, succeed. Because mental retardation is really easy to spot. Except for them. But it is important to remember. It is NOT their fault. Just plain bad luck.

Oh, now I'm "mentally retarded" for pointing out that your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad is laughable?

But it's everyone ELSE that makes personal attacks...right Tommy?

 

[Rshermr]

Did someone say something. Oh, well, if so, he was just one of those mentally deficient folks who simply troll around making personal attacks. But what can you expect. Mental retardation is a serious problem. And those that exhibit those traits often end up working in the dish washing business, or something similar. Never able to have a real life. So, they have to lie a lot. To make people think they know something.
They do not, however, succeed. Because mental retardation is really easy to spot. Except for them. But it is important to remember. It is NOT their fault. Just plain bad luck.

Oh, now I'm "mentally retarded" for pointing out that your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad is laughable?

But it's everyone ELSE that makes personal attacks...right Tommy?

No. You are retarded, me poor ignorant con tool, because you have made that claim over 100 times, without proof. And because it is stupid. And because you do nothing but personal attacks. Because you are incapable of sticking to a subject.
You are retarded because you have made numerous charges of my having lied, and I have been able to disprove all of them. And in doing so proved you lied each and every time.
You are retarded because you have tried and tried to get someone to agree with you that what you say about me has truth, and failed.
You are retarded, me boy, because you are retarded. You are very unhappy with your life, as perhaps you should be. Because you have accomplished nothing. And just go on working as a food services guy. With nothing to distinguish yourself even as small as having worked for a professor over 45 years ago and taught part of his class plan along with three other students. All of which you know. I never was responsible for an economics class, and never said I was, but you keep saying that I have said I "taught economics" as though I had responsibility for an econ class You are retarded because you think that someone would brag about that.
You are retarded because you agreed to stop pushing this lie and wasting my time over a year ago, if I would provide the information you requested. Which I did. And since when you have made the same claim over 50 times.

So, you are retarded. Nothing I can do to help you. It is truly your own emotional problem. It causes you to be a lying clown. But it is not your fault, oldstyle. Just bad luck.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did someone say something. Oh, well, if so, he was just one of those mentally deficient folks who simply troll around making personal attacks. But what can you expect. Mental retardation is a serious problem. And those that exhibit those traits often end up working in the dish washing business, or something similar. Never able to have a real life. So, they have to lie a lot. To make people think they know something.
They do not, however, succeed. Because mental retardation is really easy to spot. Except for them. But it is important to remember. It is NOT their fault. Just plain bad luck.

Oh, now I'm "mentally retarded" for pointing out that your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad is laughable?

But it's everyone ELSE that makes personal attacks...right Tommy?

No. You are retarded, me poor ignorant con tool, because you have made that claim over 100 times, without proof. And because it is stupid. And because you do nothing but personal attacks. Because you are incapable of sticking to a subject.
You are retarded because you have made numerous charges of my having lied, and I have been able to disprove all of them. And in doing so proved you lied each and every time.
You are retarded because you have tried and tried to get someone to agree with you that what you say about me has truth, and failed.
You are retarded, me boy, because you are retarded. You are very unhappy with your life, as perhaps you should be. Because you have accomplished nothing. And just go on working as a food services guy. With nothing to distinguish yourself even as small as having worked for a professor over 45 years ago and taught part of his class plan along with three other students. All of which you know. I never was responsible for an economics class, and never said I was, but you keep saying that I have said I "taught economics" as though I had responsibility for an econ class You are retarded because you think that someone would brag about that.
You are retarded because you agreed to stop pushing this lie and wasting my time over a year ago, if I would provide the information you requested. Which I did. And since when you have made the same claim over 50 times.

So, you are retarded. Nothing I can do to help you. It is truly your own emotional problem. It causes you to be a lying clown. But it is not your fault, oldstyle. Just bad luck.

Without proof? Dude...you've admitted that you made the claim! You obviously realized after you did that it was a statement that was going to get you into trouble (especially since you obviously know so little about economics!) and have tried to walk it back ever since. The reason I bust your chops is that you never cease to amaze with the outlandish stories you come up with to explain your little "faux pas". Realizing that someone could actually check a list of faculty led you to scrap your "I taught at the college level" for your Tommy Flanagan version #2. which was that you weren't a professor but you taught FOR one. That's good because there is no record of that of course. I actually went as far as to check with the school you "said" you taught at and was informed that they had no knowledge of undergrads teaching classes now or at any time in school history. The person I talked to termed that "highly unlikely". Then you went with Tommy Flanagan version #3 which was that you taught a small part of the class along with 3 other students. All this from someone who didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics you were basing your contentions on and didn't know basic Keynesian economic theory.

Since you got caught embellishing your economic "credentials" I've seen you cut and paste your ass off trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows something about the subject but whenever someone asks you a question that would a breeze for a genuine Econ major you respond with either something out of Wikipedia or an excuse that it's been so long that you don't remember.

Now you whine about "personal attacks" whenever your little faux pas is brought up...demanding that your honesty not be questioned because...because...drum roll please...YOU say that you never lie!

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, now I'm "mentally retarded" for pointing out that your claim to have taught college level economics as an undergrad is laughable?

But it's everyone ELSE that makes personal attacks...right Tommy?

No. You are retarded, me poor ignorant con tool, because you have made that claim over 100 times, without proof. And because it is stupid. And because you do nothing but personal attacks. Because you are incapable of sticking to a subject.
You are retarded because you have made numerous charges of my having lied, and I have been able to disprove all of them. And in doing so proved you lied each and every time.
You are retarded because you have tried and tried to get someone to agree with you that what you say about me has truth, and failed.
You are retarded, me boy, because you are retarded. You are very unhappy with your life, as perhaps you should be. Because you have accomplished nothing. And just go on working as a food services guy. With nothing to distinguish yourself even as small as having worked for a professor over 45 years ago and taught part of his class plan along with three other students. All of which you know. I never was responsible for an economics class, and never said I was, but you keep saying that I have said I "taught economics" as though I had responsibility for an econ class You are retarded because you think that someone would brag about that.
You are retarded because you agreed to stop pushing this lie and wasting my time over a year ago, if I would provide the information you requested. Which I did. And since when you have made the same claim over 50 times.

So, you are retarded. Nothing I can do to help you. It is truly your own emotional problem. It causes you to be a lying clown. But it is not your fault, oldstyle. Just bad luck.

Without proof? Dude...you've admitted that you made the claim! You obviously realized after you did that it was a statement that was going to get you into trouble (especially since you obviously know so little about economics!) and have tried to walk it back ever since. The reason I bust your chops is that you never cease to amaze with the outlandish stories you come up with to explain your little "faux pas". Realizing that someone could actually check a list of faculty led you to scrap your "I taught at the college level" for your Tommy Flanagan version #2. which was that you weren't a professor but you taught FOR one. That's good because there is no record of that of course. I actually went as far as to check with the school you "said" you taught at and was informed that they had no knowledge of undergrads teaching classes now or at any time in school history. The person I talked to termed that "highly unlikely". Then you went with Tommy Flanagan version #3 which was that you taught a small part of the class along with 3 other students. All this from someone who didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics you were basing your contentions on and didn't know basic Keynesian economic theory.

Since you got caught embellishing your economic "credentials" I've seen you cut and paste your ass off trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows something about the subject but whenever someone asks you a question that would a breeze for a genuine Econ major you respond with either something out of Wikipedia or an excuse that it's been so long that you don't remember.

Now you whine about "personal attacks" whenever your little faux pas is brought up...demanding that your honesty not be questioned because...because...drum roll please...YOU say that you never lie!

Sorry, me boy. I never, ever lie in this board. Never. Which is why you just harp on what you would like to make an untruth. It is not. It is the truth. Sorry it makes you so crazy. Though, as we both well know, that is not your real problem.
Your claim of talking to anyone at Central is highly unlikely. If you did, it would be someone who was likely, and I mean very likely, not there 45 years ago. But, since you say you did, you should be able to provide a name and position. And I will talk to that person. It would be fun to find others that were involved at that time. But, of course, based on your history of lies, I seriously doubt that you talked to anyone at all. I will be surprised to hear anything back from you on that little bit of fiction on your part.
Now, your other lie in this post, oldstyle. You say I changed the story. That is completely untrue. You started with your request for clarification of what i did a YEAR AGO. Here is the post of my response to you. So you can try to talk your way out of it again, and out of your newest lie about how the story had changed:
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

My response as part of that post was:
Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.

So, you know all this. You just keep keeping on with your untruths. So, why should anyone waste time with you???

You did not ask what school of economics taught Keynesian economics. That also is an ongoing lie of yours, and has been disproved by your actual quote. You just lie and lie and lie. Because you have no economic knowledge. And, me boy, your opinion is worth nothing to me. I have watched many try to explain economic fact to you, but it never takes. You are much to ignorant. And yes, dipshit. Anyone who took as much economics as I did has a good understanding of Keynesian economics. Your opinion is delusional. And your claims about Keynesian economics was really, really ignorant. By the way, in your continuing lies, you stated I was basing my argument on Keynesian economics, which I was not. Amazing how many untruths you can pack into a single paragraph.

 

[Oldstyle]

No. You are retarded, me poor ignorant con tool, because you have made that claim over 100 times, without proof. And because it is stupid. And because you do nothing but personal attacks. Because you are incapable of sticking to a subject.
You are retarded because you have made numerous charges of my having lied, and I have been able to disprove all of them. And in doing so proved you lied each and every time.
You are retarded because you have tried and tried to get someone to agree with you that what you say about me has truth, and failed.
You are retarded, me boy, because you are retarded. You are very unhappy with your life, as perhaps you should be. Because you have accomplished nothing. And just go on working as a food services guy. With nothing to distinguish yourself even as small as having worked for a professor over 45 years ago and taught part of his class plan along with three other students. All of which you know. I never was responsible for an economics class, and never said I was, but you keep saying that I have said I "taught economics" as though I had responsibility for an econ class You are retarded because you think that someone would brag about that.
You are retarded because you agreed to stop pushing this lie and wasting my time over a year ago, if I would provide the information you requested. Which I did. And since when you have made the same claim over 50 times.

So, you are retarded. Nothing I can do to help you. It is truly your own emotional problem. It causes you to be a lying clown. But it is not your fault, oldstyle. Just bad luck.

Without proof? Dude...you've admitted that you made the claim! You obviously realized after you did that it was a statement that was going to get you into trouble (especially since you obviously know so little about economics!) and have tried to walk it back ever since. The reason I bust your chops is that you never cease to amaze with the outlandish stories you come up with to explain your little "faux pas". Realizing that someone could actually check a list of faculty led you to scrap your "I taught at the college level" for your Tommy Flanagan version #2. which was that you weren't a professor but you taught FOR one. That's good because there is no record of that of course. I actually went as far as to check with the school you "said" you taught at and was informed that they had no knowledge of undergrads teaching classes now or at any time in school history. The person I talked to termed that "highly unlikely". Then you went with Tommy Flanagan version #3 which was that you taught a small part of the class along with 3 other students. All this from someone who didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics you were basing your contentions on and didn't know basic Keynesian economic theory.

Since you got caught embellishing your economic "credentials" I've seen you cut and paste your ass off trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows something about the subject but whenever someone asks you a question that would a breeze for a genuine Econ major you respond with either something out of Wikipedia or an excuse that it's been so long that you don't remember.

Now you whine about "personal attacks" whenever your little faux pas is brought up...demanding that your honesty not be questioned because...because...drum roll please...YOU say that you never lie!

Sorry, me boy. I never, ever lie in this board. Never. Which is why you just harp on what you would like to make an untruth. It is not. It is the truth. Sorry it makes you so crazy. Though, as we both well know, that is not your real problem.
Your claim of talking to anyone at Central is highly unlikely. If you did, it would be someone who was likely, and I mean very likely, not there 45 years ago. But, since you say you did, you should be able to provide a name and position. And I will talk to that person. It would be fun to find others that were involved at that time. But, of course, based on your history of lies, I seriously doubt that you talked to anyone at all. I will be surprised to hear anything back from you on that little bit of fiction on your part.
Now, your other lie in this post, oldstyle. You say I changed the story. That is completely untrue. You started with your request for clarification of what i did a YEAR AGO. Here is the post of my response to you. So you can try to talk your way out of it again, and out of your newest lie about how the story had changed:
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

My response as part of that post was:
Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.

So, you know all this. You just keep keeping on with your untruths. So, why should anyone waste time with you???

You did not ask what school of economics taught Keynesian economics. That also is an ongoing lie of yours, and has been disproved by your actual quote. You just lie and lie and lie. Because you have no economic knowledge. And, me boy, your opinion is worth nothing to me. I have watched many try to explain economic fact to you, but it never takes. You are much to ignorant. And yes, dipshit. Anyone who took as much economics as I did has a good understanding of Keynesian economics. Your opinion is delusional. And your claims about Keynesian economics was really, really ignorant. By the way, in your continuing lies, you stated I was basing my argument on Keynesian economics, which I was not. Amazing how many untruths you can pack into a single paragraph.

LOL...gotta love you, Tommy! What proof do we have that you never lie? Your word that you "never, ever lie...Never." Gee, if you never ever never lie...then how could anyone argue with THAT! Two nevers and an ever? Case closed!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Without proof? Dude...you've admitted that you made the claim! You obviously realized after you did that it was a statement that was going to get you into trouble (especially since you obviously know so little about economics!) and have tried to walk it back ever since. The reason I bust your chops is that you never cease to amaze with the outlandish stories you come up with to explain your little "faux pas". Realizing that someone could actually check a list of faculty led you to scrap your "I taught at the college level" for your Tommy Flanagan version #2. which was that you weren't a professor but you taught FOR one. That's good because there is no record of that of course. I actually went as far as to check with the school you "said" you taught at and was informed that they had no knowledge of undergrads teaching classes now or at any time in school history. The person I talked to termed that "highly unlikely". Then you went with Tommy Flanagan version #3 which was that you taught a small part of the class along with 3 other students. All this from someone who didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics you were basing your contentions on and didn't know basic Keynesian economic theory.

Since you got caught embellishing your economic "credentials" I've seen you cut and paste your ass off trying to pass yourself off as someone who knows something about the subject but whenever someone asks you a question that would a breeze for a genuine Econ major you respond with either something out of Wikipedia or an excuse that it's been so long that you don't remember.

Now you whine about "personal attacks" whenever your little faux pas is brought up...demanding that your honesty not be questioned because...because...drum roll please...YOU say that you never lie!

Sorry, me boy. I never, ever lie in this board. Never. Which is why you just harp on what you would like to make an untruth. It is not. It is the truth. Sorry it makes you so crazy. Though, as we both well know, that is not your real problem.
Your claim of talking to anyone at Central is highly unlikely. If you did, it would be someone who was likely, and I mean very likely, not there 45 years ago. But, since you say you did, you should be able to provide a name and position. And I will talk to that person. It would be fun to find others that were involved at that time. But, of course, based on your history of lies, I seriously doubt that you talked to anyone at all. I will be surprised to hear anything back from you on that little bit of fiction on your part.
Now, your other lie in this post, oldstyle. You say I changed the story. That is completely untrue. You started with your request for clarification of what i did a YEAR AGO. Here is the post of my response to you. So you can try to talk your way out of it again, and out of your newest lie about how the story had changed:
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

My response as part of that post was:
Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.

So, you know all this. You just keep keeping on with your untruths. So, why should anyone waste time with you???

You did not ask what school of economics taught Keynesian economics. That also is an ongoing lie of yours, and has been disproved by your actual quote. You just lie and lie and lie. Because you have no economic knowledge. And, me boy, your opinion is worth nothing to me. I have watched many try to explain economic fact to you, but it never takes. You are much to ignorant. And yes, dipshit. Anyone who took as much economics as I did has a good understanding of Keynesian economics. Your opinion is delusional. And your claims about Keynesian economics was really, really ignorant. By the way, in your continuing lies, you stated I was basing my argument on Keynesian economics, which I was not. Amazing how many untruths you can pack into a single paragraph.

LOL...gotta love you, Tommy! What proof do we have that you never lie? Your word that you "never, ever lie...Never." Gee, if you never ever never lie...then how could anyone argue with THAT! Two nevers and an ever? Case closed!!!

Another profound post. And another effort to ignore the fact that you lied. Typical. What is obvious, however, is that no one I have seen post here has been able to chain together 3 to 4 lies in a single paragraph. For that, you have the record.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yup...everybody lies except for you, Tommy. Because even though you can't find a college where undergraduates teach courses...you're the exception to the rule...the one guy who does what nobody else does.

You want us to believe that even though your expertise in the subject that you supposedly taught is almost non-existent. You want us to believe that even though you totally "whiffed" when I asked you what school of economics you were basing your contentions on. Didn't have a clue what I was talking about. THAT is when I knew that you were totally full of shit!

 

[Rshermr]

Yup...everybody lies except for you, Tommy. Because even though you can't find a college where undergraduates teach courses...you're the exception to the rule...the one guy who does what nobody else does.

You want us to believe that even though your expertise in the subject that you supposedly taught is almost non-existent. You want us to believe that even though you totally "whiffed" when I asked you what school of economics you were basing your contentions on. Didn't have a clue what I was talking about. THAT is when I knew that you were totally full of shit!

Keep saying it over and over and over, as you do, and one day you will believe it. Part of the communist methodology. Just repeat it enough. Sorry, me boy. You are a proven liar. And wasting everyone's time, as usual. '

By the way, me lying con tool, where is the name of the staff member at cwu that you claimed to have talked with? You seem to have forgotten to provide that. What a surprise.

You keep mentioning this mysterious us. So, do you have multiple personality disorder, in addition to your normal congenital idiocy???
I know you would like to keep this drivel going on. Easier and safer for you than discussing the subject of this economic thread. But you are now officially on ignore.