Originally Posted By jonvn Woody has had, um...issues for quite a while now. You should read his nonsense about Disney. It's from planet X. The net does an interesting thing. It gives a voice and stature to people that would not otherwise have one. And it requires people who are not whacked out to be able to discern the crazies in a new way they probably don't do otherwise. You first have to give everyone a shot at saying something reasonable. Then over time, you come to understand that a person is just not playing with a full deck. Other venues have ignore features on their boards, and usenet has killfiles. They are very handy, although not perfect. Here, you have to just look at the name, and remember to not really even bother reading something in much depth because it's just either pointlessly insane, as with Ed, viciously insane as with beau, or just superciliously insane as in woody. It is simply not worth reading or responding to these people. They can't engage in a normal conversation. Some can sometimes engage in a short round of give and take, but it almost always ends up like the above. It's really not worth the time. I generally give woody about maybe one or two responses. By that time, he's off in outer space again. Beau doesn't really deserve more than a few words at this point, if that. Ed, at least when sober, can sometimes say something and if you catch him before his next hit, which is likely very soon, is sometimes ok. But for your own sanity, it's important to know when to disengage from the lunatics. This is a hard lesson I've had to learn over the years, and one that is hard to keep up on.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I generally give woody about maybe one or two responses. By that time, he's off in outer space again. Beau doesn't really deserve more than a few words at this point, if that. Ed, at least when sober, can sometimes say something and if you catch him before his next hit, which is likely very soon, is sometimes ok.>> Sure Jon. I notice you and STPH instead of backing up your nonsense, you try to discredit the people who expose you as being a shallow thinkers. Nice try though. Typical ploy from blowhards who get caught being blowhards.
Originally Posted By fkurucz An interesting article in BusinessWeek: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/06_39/b4002001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives</a> "What's Really Propping Up The Economy. Since 2001, the health-care industry has added 1.7 million jobs. The rest of the private sector? None "
Originally Posted By woody >>It is simply not worth reading or responding to these people. They can't engage in a normal conversation. Some can sometimes engage in a short round of give and take, but it almost always ends up like the above. It's really not worth the time.<< That's funny. You really haven't engaged in any discussion on the thread YOU created. All you do is insult the people who disagree with you. You're the nut, who in other discussion boards, simply spend time disagreeing without adding anything worthwhile. You're quite interesting. For a guy who doesn't like to repeat himself, you seem to enjoy repeating yourself with this constant refrain. Quite telling if you asked me. Incredibly predictable and repetitive.
Originally Posted By woody Jonvn said "You should read his nonsense about Disney. It's from planet X." Why don't you do a bit more with this? Gosh. You throw out comments without anything, anything description. Come on. Give it a try. Instead of just describing what I may have done, quote what I said (if you can). Okay, I'll repeat my comments on Disney here. To be precise, my comments on how DCA SUCKs. Yeah, I knew it was coming. Those who say DCA is a pretty bad park must be NUTS. I suppose the Disney Executives, who are planning major changes, are doing it for their "egos" and not because DCA is doing poorly. Obviously, DCA is doing well (rolls eyes).
Originally Posted By jonvn "Since 2001, the health-care industry has added 1.7 million jobs. The rest of the private sector? None "" Really? That doesn't sound like it's right....
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh According to the payroll survey, we've added 4.6 million jobs since November of 2001. According to the household survey, we've added 7.9 million. Subtracting 1.7 million heath care jobs leaves 2.9 to 6.2 million jobs. I find it hard to believe all those jobs are in the public sector.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <According to the payroll survey, we've added 4.6 million jobs since November of 2001. According to the household survey, we've added 7.9 million. Subtracting 1.7 million heath care jobs leaves 2.9 to 6.2 million jobs. I find it hard to believe all those jobs are in the public sector.> You should read the whole article. It doesn't really address the additions in the public sector (though I remember reading elsewhere that a large percentage of the "job growth" since 2001 has been there). But they do say that when you take away health care (and it makes sense that jobs are increasing there due to the aging population), "the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago." Moreover, some sectors have declined and others picked up, but the jobs that are disappearing are generally higher paying than the ones that they are being replaced with. War on the middle class indeed. "But the very real problems with the health-care system mask a simple fact: Without it the nation's labor market would be in a deep coma. Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago. Sure, housing has been a bonanza for homebuilders, real estate agents, and mortgage brokers. Together they have added more than 900,000 jobs since 2001. But the pressures of globalization and new technology have wreaked havoc on the rest of the labor market: Factories are still closing, retailers are shrinking, and the finance and insurance sector, outside of real estate lending and health insurers, has generated few additional jobs."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But they do say that when you take away health care (and it makes sense that jobs are increasing there due to the aging population), "the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago."> Yes, I know. I found that unconvincing, and none of your comments addressed the discrepencies I noted.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>And it's a real thing. But that doesn't mean that the interests of the poor and middle class never intersect.<< <Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. All indications are that you bought into the premise without thinking about it.> No; there are plenty of people here (vbdad, RT, jonvn) with thoughtful things to say about the subject. You're just not one of them. <Your response also indicates your lack of reading comprehension. I notice how conveniently you changed the meaning of my quote. I said "The interests of the middle class and poor don't intersect." You slipped in the NEVER.> Actually, as you even quoted later, I tried to give you the chance to clear it up. I said "Really? Never?" You had your chance then to clarify, but it took you quite a while to backpedal with "There are similar interests between the middle class and the poor, but for the most part, their interests don't intersect." RT, of course, had already provided plenty of examples of where the interests do intersect, so even that backpedal is questionable. And then he took you to the woodshed on your use of language, and jon pegged you for what you have, sadly, become all too often - so my work here is done.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>According to the payroll survey, we've added 4.6 million jobs since November of 2001. According to the household survey, we've added 7.9 million. Subtracting 1.7 million heath care jobs leaves 2.9 to 6.2 million jobs. I find it hard to believe all those jobs are in the public sector.<< FWIW, it was a BusinessWeek article, and not Mother Jones.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But they do say that when you take away health care (and it makes sense that jobs are increasing there due to the aging population), "the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago.">> <Yes, I know. I found that unconvincing, and none of your comments addressed the discrepencies I noted.> What discrepencies? You only noted one: " I find it hard to believe all those jobs are in the public sector." Yet according to Business Week, that must be the case. If you're going to find it "hard to believe" and "unconvincing" you should present evidence that we have added more private sector jobs outside of health care than Business Week says we have. And we're talking net growth here, i.e. taking into account the jobs we've lost (usually better ones) as well as the recent Walmart and McDonald's hires.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet according to Business Week, that must be the case.> And that doesn't make sense. I don't need you to repeat what Business Week said again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yet according to Business Week, that must be the case.>> <And that doesn't make sense. I don't need you to repeat what Business Week said again.> They gave the figures. If what they're saying is true, it makes perfect sense. If you're going to say it "doesn't make sense" you need to show WHY. Otherwise it's just empty.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I did show why I have trouble believing Business Week. Did public employment really increase by some four and a half million?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They seem to think so. Can you provide alternate public employment figures?
Originally Posted By woody >>No; there are plenty of people here (vbdad, RT, jonvn) with thoughtful things to say about the subject. You're just not one of them.<< I was specifically referring to YOU for not noticing how your position does not match your attack of my quotation. As for jonvn, he has came up short repeatedly for not supporting his position. >>Actually, as you even quoted later, I tried to give you the chance to clear it up. I said "Really? Never?" You had your chance then to clarify, but it took you quite a while to backpedal with "There are similar interests between the middle class and the poor, but for the most part, their interests don't intersect."<< It's not a backpedal. How could you be so ridiculous to say this? I "never" said "never". >>RT, of course, had already provided plenty of examples of where the interests do intersect, so even that backpedal is questionable.<< I'm not going to confirm the effectiveness of his arguments unless you point them out to me. Yet, I never said "never". >>so my work here is done.<< Your work at misrepresentation is NEVER done.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>No; there are plenty of people here (vbdad, RT, jonvn) with thoughtful things to say about the subject. You're just not one of them.<< <I was specifically referring to YOU for not noticing how your position does not match your attack of my quotation.> What does that even mean? You're not being clear. <As for jonvn, he has came up short repeatedly for not supporting his position.> On the contrary, he's done a far better job supporting his than you have supporting yours. >>Actually, as you even quoted later, I tried to give you the chance to clear it up. I said "Really? Never?" You had your chance then to clarify, but it took you quite a while to backpedal with "There are similar interests between the middle class and the poor, but for the most part, their interests don't intersect."<< <It's not a backpedal. How could you be so ridiculous to say this? I "never" said "never".> RT already pointed out that saying two things do not intersect is essentially saying they never do. Two lines that do not intersect never do. "I don't cheat on my wife" means I never do. Still, I posed "never?" as a question specifically to give you a chance to clarify. You didn't do so until about 50 posts later after you'd been woodshedded. >>RT, of course, had already provided plenty of examples of where the interests do intersect, so even that backpedal is questionable.<< <I'm not going to confirm the effectiveness of his arguments unless you point them out to me.> See number 73. He gave several excellent examples which completely blow open your argument, and of course you didn't respond to them then. >>so my work here is done.<< <Your work at misrepresentation is NEVER done.> If I thought you'd understand the difference...
