RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN???

RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

flcouple2009 -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 9:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic 4, Im almost fifty and Im unable to find a bar that likes to ROCK the way I do. Act your damn age woman [sm=buddies.gif]

Lucylastic -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 9:56:36 AM)
getting old is mandatory, growing up isnt[sm=alien.gif]

flcouple2009 -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 9:58:22 AM)
smooches

Lucylastic -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 10:00:37 AM)
smewwwwwchies back atcha

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:21:50 PM)
[image]http://www.investors.com/image/3A13c_110816.png[/image]

DomYngBlk -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:39:19 PM)
Percentages are wonderful things. Got any numbers?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Percentages are wonderful things. Got any numbers? Google is your friend. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather let's see here... 1. she's a politician. 2. she spun a fact to make the other side look bad. and? christ on a cupcake people, what the fuck did you expect? Truth?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Percentages are wonderful things. Got any numbers? Google is your friend. Firm I will take that as you knowing you are going to look silly with the actual numbers. I thought so.

mnottertail -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:50:07 PM)
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp this is to 2010, (I would assume a sharp decrease flushing the census guys, and unemployment numbers went up with that flush so) and I wonder where they are getting the 2011 from so far, because I dont see them on opm or bls......so is it the conservative think tank putting out those numbers? help?

Lucylastic -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:53:21 PM)
The salient point is that Bachman was using numbers from BEFORE Obama was president, not in the past year Firm..if she had been smart enough to use YOUR figures, no one would have called her on it, or at least would have been corrected. but then again maybe not

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:54:18 PM)
Regulation Business, Jobs Booming Under Obama The numbers in the chart end in March of this year, so I suspect they are part of a quarterly report. I'm sure that they are out there. Firm

DomYngBlk -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:57:02 PM)
Again, no real numbers.....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The salient point is that Bachman was using numbers from BEFORE Obama was president, not in the past year Firm..if she had been smart enough to use YOUR figures, no one would have called her on it, or at least would have been corrected. but then again maybe not You mean ... You could say ... ... that they were "Fake, but Accurate"? [:D] Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 12:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Again, no real numbers..... DYB, Some people, I wouldn't waste my time "showing the numbers". You are among them. Others, would check the numbers themselves, so providing a link is redundant. Such as with Ron. I can have a conversation with Ron. With you, it's just an insult match. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 1:00:26 PM)
Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, found that between March 2010 and March 2011 federal regulatory jobs climbed faster than either private jobs or overall government jobs. (See chart.) Ah Ha!!!!!! I am looking for the numbers off BLS and OPM, but goddamned if I can find em.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 1:02:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Again, no real numbers..... DYB, Some people, I wouldn't waste my time "showing the numbers". You are among them. Others, would check the numbers themselves, so providing a link is redundant. Such as with Ron. I can have a conversation with Ron. With you, it's just an insult match. Firm As usual dropping to the insult when you know you can't prove your claim. Its fine. You do what you want. But dont whine people call bullshit on your bullshit.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 1:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk As usual dropping to the insult when you know you can't prove your claim. Its fine. You do what you want. But dont whine people call bullshit on your bullshit. So the Progressive Policy Institute, BLS, and OPM are lying? Ok. Firm

DomYngBlk -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 1:14:20 PM)
% wise increases sure. But what are the hard numbers.......You want to slip in the percentages as showing a vast growth when real numbers wouldn't show the same affect. Clever sure but it isn't the truth by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't even touch that the regulators are needed. Which is another story entirely

flcouple2009 -> RE: Playing loose with facts AGAIN??? (8/18/2011 1:47:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You mean ... You could say ... ... that they were "Fake, but Accurate"? [:D] Firm Why don't you have the balls are the integrity to call them what they actually were? skewed to intentionally mislead

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875