"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:49:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?

I noticed your failure to mention it.....

I didn't even read it. As has happened before, I started checking your
"cites" and found that the very first one was an out-and-out lie, so I
didn't waste my time with the rest. That's become an unpleasant pattern
with
your extensive quotations...from sources you never read.

Read that as "I didnt agree with it, so it must be a lie"

No, it was a lie. I still remember what "lie" means, which probably makes me
a throwback. Do you remember?

Here's the lie, from your quote:

ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)

The lie(s) is (are), the economic data you quoted from "confirm" no such
thing. In fact, the article cited doesn't even imply such a thing.

Maybe it's best if I spell it out. Clinton wasn't President in 2000, so
"slower growth" then confirms nothing about the previous period. It isn't
even mentioned or suggested in the article. The article is about the
"unwelcome numbers" from 2001 - 2002, not about what happened during the
Clinton administration. Even the mention of "slower growth" during 2000 cite
a figure that is rip-roaring growth [4.5% at the time Clinton left office]
by any established standards for an economy like that of the US.

By selecting and arranging words, your citation suggests that The Economist
was saying that the recession began during Clinton's administration. Not so.
It didn't even say it started in 2000, after Bush was in office. It says it
started in 2001.

Here's the actual quote, from which your citation selected a sentence:

"According to the Commerce Department's new figures, released on July 31st
[2002], the economy was actually shrinking for the first nine months of
2001. America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of
September 11th."

In fact, it's now accepted that it began in March 2001, more than a year
after Bush took office. That was when the recession, which has a specific
meaning in economics, began. The rest is bull**** prognostication, and there
isn't a hint of support in the article from The Economist that they were
saying it started under Clinton.

So, where are these statistics that "confirm" the slowdown began under
Clinton? Nowhere in the article from which you drew your quote. I have the
whole article here.

Does anyone remember what a "lie" means? For a refresher, your citation is a
lie. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of the statement they made
being untrue, demonstrably so (hell, it's just words in an article that they
lied about, so it doesn't take any analysis) and they know it.

Ed Huntress