Sad News

In article ,
says...

"Joe" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
There's always regional problems, but the state of North Carolina
actually has a lower unemployment rate than the entire left-coast.

North Carolina - 4.6
Washington - 5.1
Oregon - 5.6
California - 5.0

http://www.nemw.org/unemp.htm

Sadly, unemployment rates aren't a true indicator of *REAL* unemployment.
As has been stated before, many people who don't have jobs are dropped from
the unemployment rolls, if they have gone thru the entire period of their
unemployment payments and still not found suitable employment.
Under-employment is another issue, as well. Just because someone came off
the unemployment rolls, doesn't mean they found a job that pays what they
once made. It is more likely that a furniture factory worker, who lost his
job due to outsourcing, will find a job, in the retail sector which pays
much less than his previous job paid In general, many more retail/service
industry jobs are filled, by the formerly unemployed, than high
paying/hi-tech jobs. What with outsourcing, under-employment and employment
of foreign workers--hi-tech or otherwise, official statistic don't
realistically indicate the health of the over-all economy, regionally or
nationally, IMMHO.

I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left
and right coasts. Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:13:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us"
live in a high tech Mecca.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

In article ,
lid says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:13:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us"
live in a high tech Mecca.

Very Clintonian of you.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:07:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:13:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us"
live in a high tech Mecca.

Very Clintonian of you.

And very 'Bush' of you. g

Here's what he posted: "Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't
understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--".
Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

I don't see what difference that makes, but good for you.

So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:56:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.

It does prove you can't read, though. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Joe" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

I don't see what difference that makes, but good for you.

So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.

Nor does it MAKE you a dumbass. However, it DOES make that diagnostic
feature eminently clear.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Joe wrote:

So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.

Is that because you didn't think of anyone else or
because you chose to throw a dart at Clinton in
particular ? We have a president now who has
sent thousands of people to their deaths on the
pretense that he is dealing with 9/11 by invading
Iraq. I guess that that is a trivial "wordplay," not
to be confused by real "wordplay."

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:56:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

I don't see what difference that makes, but good for you.

So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.


If something looks like political doodoo, then we're apt to take it as
political doodoo.

Saying 'doublespeak' or some politically neutral word would have kept
you from stepping in that particular error.

I don't see that anywhere in this thread that you quoted that you
answered as to what the supposed bogus claim was. Which tends to pop
right into the political method of ignoring the question. And that
could easily be attributed to a lot of modern politicians. However,
it's been going on as far as records have been kept, so it's better if
I avoid names.

I seem to vaguely remember that you claimed Opie said something that
my reading didn't support as a reasonable way to take his post. But
if you tend to do that a lot here, various nasty people will take you
to task for it.

--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli