the perpetual excuse

[Bryan]

You seem to have developed a habit of citing references that don't actually support your claims.

You seem to have temporarily broken your habit of making that claim frivolously (albeit you probably only have the one example go on, cumulatively).

Here's a more appropriate graph:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...ficial%26sa%3DG

The charts you linked to show only the real minimum wage, not real wages in general. And they actually show a decline in the real minimum wage through all of Bush's time prior to the minimum wage increase that was passed just this year.

78815[/snapback]

But at least we can still count on your brain-dead analysis.

Of course a static minimum wage decreases in terms of real wages with >0 inflation. That pattern is consistent regardless of the president in office.

[Strife767]

"resign the presidency in disgrace"???  You're confused. Even though Bubba

  Clinton

I think he meant Nixon, hotshot; he was a Republican.

disgraced the presidency by committing adultry in the white house

I'd rather have a president who sleeps around than one who racks up trillions of dollars in a pointless "war" anyday.

  and lying

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

[Bryan]

Most sources are wrong in this case.

78705[/snapback]

How do you figure?

I read the information carefully.

Franklin denied writing it. Read it again, and observe the context.

Neither of the web links that you've cited have argued that the statement itself was not from Franklin, but only that it is often paraphrased badly, and that the book that is sometimes cited as a source was not written by Franklin.

The book is the ultimate source. Pay attention to the context.

But it appears from your second link that the book itself cites the quote in an excerpt of the previously mentioned letter. So, regardless of who the author of the book is, the book was citing (or at least, claimed to be citing) Ben Franklin. That the historian cited in your second link can not find a copy of this letter or other documentation to check the validity of that, does leave some room for uncertainty.

And Franklin may have said "We cheat the other guy--and pass the savings on to you!.

It's not the kind of uncertainty that should lead to attributing the quotation to Franklin.

The author of that book could have been lying or in error. But considering that, though not the author, Ben Franklin was the publisher of that book, it seems unlikely that such a thing would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected.

You're funny.

The most severe criticisms you can honestly make against those who've used the quote here is that the citation was a paraphrase, and that the attribution to Franklin, though very likely correct, is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

You're very funny.

Despite all your protestations, Bryan, the finger still points to Ben Franklin as the most likely source. Your own citations do nothing to contradict that. Perhaps you should have read them more carefully.

78808[/snapback]

I've read them more carefully than you have, obviously.

"It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking."

[Strife767]

The first attack on the WTC was much less sophisticated with far less planning

  involved.

So, it would have been easier to thwart, and yet it wasn't. Bush Sr. had even less of an excuse to fail at it, by your logic.

[Bryan]

Bryna, this is why I always find myself taking issue with you ... the statement above is just plain false.

What's false about it?

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/12/sa...gtime_state.php

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...f%20Palestinian

Do you define a 'terrorist' as anyone who finds themselves fighting against the US military?

No. Do you always ask stupid questions?

You pass it off like what you're saying is just a given fact and it's not.

78709[/snapback]

On what basis do you doubt?

[Guest Guest]

Read it again, and bear in mind that there's no way to absolutely prove that he didn't say any version of it.  Of course, I could start attributing all sort of statements to you that can't be shown inaccurate either ...

78805[/snapback]

Absolute proof is not a standard that reasonable people use for most things, certainly not for things like this. Appropriate historical tests include (1) presence or absence of first-hand accounts, (2) the number of accounts, (3) consistency of accounts, (4) contemporaneousnes, (5) reliability of sources and (6) whether the comments were likely to have supported a controversial view, thereby rendering them suspect (the political football problem). There are others.

[Guest Guest]

"resign the presidency in disgrace"???  You're confused. Even though Bubba

  Clinton disgraced the presidency by committing adultry in the white house

  and lying under oath before congress and the american public,  he wasn't

  forced to resign although he should have been.

    You're correct about the missles, Bubba did sell missle technology to the

  Chinese.  But what does that have to do with republicans ???

78822[/snapback]

Enjoy your delusions wanker while Tricky Dicky, and Treaonous RayGun fertilize flowers and The Shrub generates enough BullManure to fertilize the world.

[Guest Guest]

The first attack on the WTC was much less sophisticated with far less planning

  involved.  Bubba Clinton wouldn't allow the FBI to communicate with the CIA.

78833[/snapback]

And The Shrub changed this how?

And The Shrub paid what attention to warnings of the possible use of hijacked planes as weapons?

[Guest Guest]

The blame for today's terrorism levels lies squarely with Bubba Clinton. After

  the first WTC bombing he did nothing, after the USS Cole bombing he did

  nothing, after the embassy bombings he did nothing, he cut funding for the

  military, he ordered the CIA not to share info with the FBI, he wouldn't allow

  the NSA to tap terrorist phone calls. He led the terrorists to believe the U.S.

  was a paper tiger and was afraid to retaliate against them.  Now we have a

  president who's fighting back, taking the fight to the terrorists and the "blame

  america first" defeatocrats don't like it. They worry that a few third-world

  camel jockeys around the world won't like us.  They give Bubba a pass for

  getting BJ's while terrorists plotted against us but condemn GWB for

  protecting us from any futher danger. So now we have domestic terrorists (the

  Loony Left Kool-aiders) and the foreign terrorists to worry about, which group

  is more of a danger to the security of America ??

78501[/snapback]

I'm a registered democrat and I agree with you. Clinton didn't have the

backbone to be president in this time of global terrorism. I hear my friends

complaining about the Patriot Act, saying it takes away our freedom. Well,

would you prefer that we not try to discover terrorists plotting against us?

I read on this board some people saying Bush didn't protect us from the

terrorists on 9/11, that the intelligence wasn't good enough. These are the

same people complaining about the Patriot Act! Well which way do you want it?

Do you want your "freedoms" protected or do you want to prevent terrorism?

Everyone would like to see America as it was in 1968 (the summer of love),

but it's a different world today and if we don't adapt to todays threats we'll

suffer another attack possibly worse than 9/11. I wish some of you that hate

Bush would stop and think about this, if we don't keep a step ahead of the

terrorists, if we let them catch us with our guard down, they will attack us in

any way they can. I'm grateful that Bush is doing all he can to protect us and

I will vote republican in the next election, I don't think Hilliary, Obama or

Edwards is capable of protecting us.

[Guest a proud american]

The first attack on the WTC was much less sophisticated with far less planning

  involved.  Bubba Clinton wouldn't allow the FBI to communicate with the CIA.

78833[/snapback]

You still haven't answered the question. Who's watch was it planned on. Clinton was in office for a little over one month so if I understand you correctly they threw the plans together in a month?

But wouldn't you think that when an FBI Agent files a report about middle eastern persons not wanting to learn how to land a plane just fly one that someone should have done something?

And, when the PDB was given to Bush to read entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in USA with the possibility of using high jacked aircraft in August, 2001 someone should have taken some kind of action. I think the truth is, he didn't even bother to read it because it contained too many pages.

[WilliamK]

But at least we can still count on your brain-dead analysis.

Of course a static minimum wage decreases in terms of real wages with >0 inflation.  That pattern is consistent regardless of the president in office.

78855[/snapback]

You say that as if refuting something I said. But exactly where did I suggest anything to the contrary? Oh, that's right, I didn't! It's just Bryan making stuff up. My supposed "brain-dead analysis" is, in reality, entirely your own invention. Your dishonesty is truly stunning.

[Guest Guest]

So, it would have been easier to thwart, and yet it wasn't. Even less of an excuse for the man in office at the time, and you admit it unknowingly.

78859[/snapback]

Huh??

[WilliamK]

Franklin denied writing it.  Read it again, and observe the context.

78858[/snapback]

Franklin denied writing the book. He did not deny the quote.

The book is the ultimate source.  Pay attention to the context.

78858[/snapback]

The book cites the letter. The book was authored anonymously, but it was published by, and in at least one case personally distributed by Ben Franklin himself. Which to some extent puts it on Franklin's own honor that the words attributed to him in the book are legitimate. That this is inconvenient for you, does not make it untrue or irrelevant. Nor does the later misattribution of the authorship of the book, or the even later faulty paraphrases of the quote, in any way alter the fact or significance of what transpired earlier.

And Franklin may have said "We cheat the other guy--and pass the savings on to you!.

It's not the kind of uncertainty that should lead to attributing the quotation to Franklin.

78858[/snapback]

Very dishonest, Bryan, but not at all unexpected.

A randomly made-up quote with no indication at all about who authored it is an extremely poor analogy for one that is attributed to Ben Franklin in a book published by Ben Franklin.

You're funny.

You're very funny.

78858[/snapback]

Am I? Somehow, I don't think you really mean that. I don't find you funny, Bryan.

I've read them more carefully than you have, obviously.

78858[/snapback]

In suggesting that you hadn't, I was being quite charitable. You'd have done yourself a favor by not claiming otherwise.

"It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking."

78858[/snapback]

Indeed. And according to Richard Jackson, the quote was from a letter written by Ben Franklin. Your point?

Really, Bryan. You've gone on at great length trying to belittle someone and accuse them of dishonesty over a bit of uncertainty in a quote attribution that is still probably correct. This is casual conversation, not a scholarly publication. But even so, I'm sure any of the parties involved would be perfectly happy to acknowledge the uncertainty now that it has been pointed out. But if you're hoping to cow them into an admission of some kind of big lie or heinous error, it just isn't going to work. There is no big lie to admit to. No apology is owed. Not to you, anyway.

Do you have enough decency to be ashamed of yourself?

[Strife767]

I'm a registered democrat and I agree with you. Clinton didn't have the

   backbone to be president in this time of global terrorism. I hear my friends

   complaining about the Patriot Act, saying it takes away our freedom. Well,

   would you prefer that we not try to discover terrorists plotting against us?

Again, those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. It's a sad day when this country has forgotten the meaning of "essential liberties" and how important it was to have them.

      I read on this board some people saying Bush didn't protect us from the

   terrorists on 9/11, that the intelligence wasn't good enough. These are the

   same people complaining about the Patriot Act!

Actually, most of that 'sentiment' is just a jab at the Bush-heads who seem to think that having Bush in office makes us impervious to terrorist attacks. Pointing out the fact that he didn't stop 9/11 is just injecting a bit of reality back into the equation.

Well which way do you want it?

   Do you want your "freedoms" protected or do you want to prevent terrorism?

Don't you see how terrorism works? The whole point is to SCARE you. If we had been able to show that their plans failed, that would deter them a whole hell of a lot more than the woefully misnamed "Patriot Act". You know what would kill their morale? Rebuilding the Twin Towers immediately (and hell, make them one floor higher just to spite them). I'm sure we could have rebuilt them in less time than it took them to plan the attacks! What better way to demoralize terrorists and their cause than to negate all of their efforts and planning and show them that we can build faster than they can destroy?

Instead, people like you do exactly what they want. You get scared, and you become willing to hand over the freedoms that generations of people have fought and died for, just for the illusion of security. Yes, it's an illusion. You CAN'T make an airplane 100% safe; too many people have access. Even with all of the added checking and stopping going on in airports since 9/11, it's still only a small percentage of people who are actually stopped and thoroughly checked. What terrorist wouldn't take those odds? Even if it was 99% (and even something like 50% would slow airports down to the point of unusability), the terrorists would still try, because of their fanatical devotion to their cause. And eventually, one of them would get through and cause another disaster. Then what?

You have to be realistic about this. Those freedoms you're so willing to concede? A whole lot of people have fought pretty damned hard to get them. Don't squander them. It isn't worth it. Handing over essential liberties will not stop maniacs from trying to kill us, it will not stop the occasional one from succeeding, and too many people have given their lives for these freedoms for me to be willing to just hand them over for the illusion of safety.

Everyone would like to see America as it was in 1968 (the summer of love),

   but it's a different world today and if we don't adapt to todays threats we'll

   suffer another attack possibly worse than 9/11. I wish some of you that hate

   Bush would stop and think about this, if we don't keep a step ahead of the

   terrorists, if we let them catch us with our guard down, they will attack us in

   any way they can. I'm grateful that Bush is doing all he can to protect us and

   I will vote republican in the next election, I don't think Hilliary, Obama or

   Edwards is capable of protecting us.

78897[/snapback]

NO ONE is capable of perfectly protecting us. If you think that's possible, you are living in a dream world. Nothing short of housing the entire population of the US in bomb shelters and never allowing them to leave would come even close to doing the job. I wonder if you would be willing to go that far just to feel safe.

[Bryan]

But at least we can still count on your brain-dead analysis.

Of course a static minimum wage decreases in terms of real wages with >0 inflation.  That pattern is consistent regardless of the president in office.

You say that as if refuting something I said. But exactly where did I suggest anything to the contrary? Oh, that's right, I didn't! It's just Bryan making stuff up. My supposed "brain-dead analysis" is, in reality, entirely your own invention. Your dishonesty is truly stunning.

78961[/snapback]

How, exactly, did I "say that as if refuting something (you) said"?

You're such a hypocrite, WilliamK.

My comment hits you whether you thought you were making some point about Bush or whether your comment was simply pointless, for pointless commentary may come from those who are figuratively brain-dead.

Once again, WilliamK is the one making things up ("You say that as if ...").

[Strife767]

Huh??

78972[/snapback]

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=78924

[Bryan]

Franklin denied writing the book. He did not deny the quote.

Did somebody accuse him of being quoted in the book, that he had some reason to deny or affirm it?

There was a similar quotation in a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly that Franklin may have written.

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/biography/chap01.htm

The book cites the letter. The book was authored anonymously, but it was published by, and in at least one case personally distributed by Ben Franklin himself. Which to some extent puts it on Franklin's own honor that the words attributed to him in the book are legitimate.

Franklin admits that the bulk of the words were not his, so that issue is settled. You might ask yourself how David Hume received the impression that Franklin was the author of the book.

That this is inconvenient for you, does not make it untrue or irrelevant.

How is that inconvenient for me?

Nor does the later misattribution of the authorship of the book, or the even later faulty paraphrases of the quote, in any way alter the fact or significance of what transpired earlier.

Meaning what, precisely? There seems to be no unequivocal evidence that the quotation came from Franklin. Would you have us pretend otherwise since he was such a terrific guy?

Very dishonest, Bryan, but not at all unexpected.

What is it you think was dishonest, WilliamK?

A randomly made-up quote with no indication at all about who authored it is an extremely poor analogy for one that is attributed to Ben Franklin in a book published by Ben Franklin.

Yes, and? How about a not-so-made-up quotation using hyperbole to emphasize the point? Meh. You're dishonest enough to call that dishonesty, I suppose.

Am I? Somehow, I don't think you really mean that. I don't find you funny, Bryan.

I really mean it. Your contortions of reason amuse me no end.

In suggesting that you hadn't, I was being quite charitable. You'd have done yourself a favor by not claiming otherwise.

Do tell.

Indeed. And according to Richard Jackson, the quote was from a letter written by Ben Franklin. Your point?

Where does Jackson attribute the quotation to a letter written by Ben Franklin? Give us the page number.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uTAmAAAAM...tsec=frontcover

Really, Bryan. You've gone on at great length trying to belittle someone and accuse them of dishonesty over a bit of uncertainty in a quote attribution that is still probably correct.

Where did I accuse somebody of dishonesty on this issue? Give us the page number for that one, too (or you can admit that you just like to make things up for effect).

This is casual conversation, not a scholarly publication. But even so, I'm sure any of the parties involved would be perfectly happy to acknowledge the uncertainty now that it has been pointed out. But if you're hoping to cow them into an admission of some kind of big lie or heinous error, it just isn't going to work. There is no big lie to admit to. No apology is owed. Not to you, anyway.

Where did I assert a lie or request an apology? Other than in your imagination, of course.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=78506

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=19379&st=300#

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=19379&st=320#

Do you have enough decency to be ashamed of yourself?

78975[/snapback]

Do you have the clarity of mind to see in yourself what you imagined in me?

And the humility to apologize for it?

[Guest Guest]

Again, those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. It's a sad day when this country has forgotten the meaning of "essential liberties" and how important it was to have them.

Actually, most of that 'sentiment' is just a jab at the Bush-heads who seem to think that having Bush in office makes us impervious to terrorist attacks. Pointing out the fact that he didn't stop 9/11 is just injecting a bit of reality back into the equation.

Don't you see how terrorism works? The whole point is to SCARE you. If we had been able to show that their plans failed, that would deter them a whole hell of a lot more than the woefully misnamed "Patriot Act". You know what would kill their morale? Rebuilding the Twin Towers immediately (and hell, make them one floor higher just to spite them). I'm sure we could have rebuilt them in less time than it took them to plan the attacks! What better way to demoralize terrorists and their cause than to negate all of their efforts and planning and show them that we can build faster than they can destroy?

Instead, people like you do exactly what they want. You get scared, and you become willing to hand over the freedoms that generations of people have fought and died for, just for the illusion of security. Yes, it's an illusion. You CAN'T make an airplane 100% safe; too many people have access. Even with all of the added checking and stopping going on in airports since 9/11, it's still only a small percentage of people who are actually stopped and thoroughly checked. What terrorist wouldn't take those odds? Even if it was 99% (and even something like 50% would slow airports down to the point of unusability), the terrorists would still try, because of their fanatical devotion to their cause. And eventually, one of them would get through and cause another disaster. Then what?

You have to be realistic about this. Those freedoms you're so willing to concede? A whole lot of people have fought pretty damned hard to get them. Don't squander them. It isn't worth it. Handing over essential liberties will not stop maniacs from trying to kill us, it will not stop the occasional one from succeeding, and too many people have given their lives for these freedoms for me to be willing to just hand them over for the illusion of safety.

NO ONE is capable of perfectly protecting us. If you think that's possible, you are living in a dream world. Nothing short of housing the entire population of the US in bomb shelters and never allowing them to leave would come even close to doing the job. I wonder if you would be willing to go that far just to feel safe.

78976[/snapback]

What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to

scare us)? That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on

9/11 scared or killed? The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

deprive you of your "essential liberties". Your paranoia is obvious.

[Guest Guest]

I'm a registered democrat and I agree with you. Clinton didn't have the

  backbone to be president in this time of global terrorism. I hear my friends

  complaining about the Patriot Act, saying it takes away our freedom. Well,

  would you prefer that we not try to discover terrorists plotting against us?

      I read on this board some people saying Bush didn't protect us from the

  terrorists on 9/11, that the intelligence wasn't good enough. These are the

  same people complaining about the Patriot Act! Well which way do you want it?

  Do you want your "freedoms" protected or do you want to prevent terrorism?

    Everyone would like to see America as it was in 1968 (the summer of love),

  but it's a different world today and if we don't adapt to todays threats we'll

  suffer another attack possibly worse than 9/11. I wish some of you that hate

  Bush would stop and think about this, if we don't keep a step ahead of the

  terrorists, if we let them catch us with our guard down, they will attack us in

  any way they can. I'm grateful that Bush is doing all he can to protect us and

  I will vote republican in the next election, I don't think Hilliary, Obama or

  Edwards is capable of protecting us.

78897[/snapback]

Do you really think the choice is that stark? If it is, freedom is dead.

Read your own words, carefully this time. Look at how you're putting it. The way you put it, everything that takes away freedom somehow makes us safer - even though it doesn't. You're prepared to sacrifice freedom thoughlessly and for no reason. That's not good for us and it won't make us safer.

What could motivate a world view like that? Two things: fear and ignorance. Exactly what the terrorists want. If we do it your way, they win.

I want a government that makes reasonable choices and respects us, not a government that seeks power for itself. Cheney has been pushing for increased executive power since long before terrorism became a significant threat. He got his opportunity, had an immature doofus over him who didn't have a clue, and he took the opportunity to do what he has been wanting to do for years - and you helped him do it.

Bush has not protected us. Just the opposite, he has made us weaker and more vulnerable to terrorism. He has completely screwed up the entire Middle East. The world is waiting for the next American president so it can begin to undo the damage.

There's no reason the government can't do appropriate surveillance, under the Constitution, with a warrant. As someone on your side pointed out, the government can't listen to every conversation. So what makes you think that it needs the power to do that? What makes you think that the government can't investigate and prosecute people whom we have good reason to believe may be engaging in improper activity? What makes you think that you're safer under a government that is lying to you and keeping secret things that personally affect you? Why can't we have freedom and security?

Because I'll tell you what: If we give government the power to do anything it wants, any time it wants, then we're not safe anyway. You look at the history of the whole world. That's how it works and has always worked. We're no different.

[Guest Guest]

    I will vote republican in the next election, I don't think Hilliary, Obama or

  Edwards is capable of protecting us.

78897[/snapback]

Not a believer in facts, huh?

Think what you like, we KNOW the R*E*P*U*B*L*I*C*A*N George Dumbya Bush failed miserably to protect us.

[Guest Guest]

The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

  originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

  around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

  deprive you of your "essential liberties".

79026[/snapback]

This does deprive us of essential liberties. Conservatives used to care about things like this. In fact, real conservatives still do.

What makes you think this practice makes us safer? Do you really think the government doesn't know who has connections to terrorist organizations? What excuse is there for why the government needs unfettered license to spy on everyone, anytime? Give us some facts, not just a claim.

[Strife767]

What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to

  scare us)?

The word is TERRORist. How do you think they earned that name? Dictionary definition: "noun: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"

You don't have to be an authority to know how something as basic as how terrorism works. Just open a history book once in a while. Hell, it's right in the name, come on.

  That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on

  9/11 scared or killed?

The people in the towers and the planes were not the real targets; the rest of us were. IIRC, Osama was pleasantly surprised because he didn't expect the towers to fall at all.

  The government is scanning phone calls to the U.S.

  originating overseas as a means of identifying terrorists and you're running

  around like a chicken without it's head thinking there's a vast conspiracy to

  deprive you of your "essential liberties". Your paranoia is obvious.

79026[/snapback]

When you cannot be assured of having a phone call with someone overseas without it being listened in on by the government, that liberty is already lost. Where is the paranoia there? You just confirmed that what you're alleging I'm "paranoid" about is already actually happening! Please explain how being outraged at something that is already actually F**KING happening is "paranoid." Listen to yourself. Listen to how desperate you are to dismiss what I'm saying. Think about what is being given up in exchange for the illusion of security.

I ask again: whatever happened to probable cause? Attacks like 9/11 are not planned in one phone call. The government would have plenty of time to get a warrant to record suspicious communication. So why doesn't it? Because it doesn't care about the freedoms of all of us who aren't planning terrorist attacks on the phone, don't you see?

[Strife767]

If we give government the power to do anything it wants, any time it wants, then we're not safe anyway.

79037[/snapback]

Very well put.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

If the govt' were only listening to "terrorists" phone calls then they would have no trouble justifying it and could continue working well within the FISA laws.

Now, they need no permission, warrants or records. Even if they didn't listen to you and me, they will listen to politcal rivals. That is also unacceptable.

Paranoid? I think not.

[WilliamK]

How, exactly, did I "say that as if refuting something (you) said"?

You're such a hypocrite, WilliamK.

78993[/snapback]

Your pretense of innocence is transparent. Your implication was quite clear.

My comment hits you whether you thought you were making some point about Bush

78993[/snapback]

Once again we see the implication that you pretend not to have made.

or whether your comment was simply pointless, for pointless commentary may come from those who are figuratively brain-dead.

78993[/snapback]

You know, Bryan, appealing to ambiguity on the mere chance that I might be guilty of one of the possible interpretations doesn't help your case much. It suggests that you're just slinging baseless accusations and hoping something will stick. And that second interpretation (the one about being pointless) is disingenuous anyway. "Brain-dead analysis" rather strongly suggests the presence of a point, even if it's one you think is wrong. It would be an utterly bizarre way to accuse someone of pointless babble.

But aside from that, there was a point. One that I strongly suspect you recognized, though you feign ignorance of it now. The point, which really should have been obvious, was simply to back up my assertion about the chart not supporting your claim. Need I remind you that it was you who brought up the topic of "real wages" during Bush's terms in office? Are you surprised then that I commented on the "real wages" numbers in the charts rather than the unadjusted ones? Do you actually think that was some sort of misunderstanding or deception, or are you just pretending to think that in hopes of painting me in a negative light?

If not meant to imply that I misunderstood or misrepresented the effect or significance of inflation, what, then, is this "brain-dead analysis" that you've accused me of?

Once again, WilliamK is the one making things up ("You say that as if ...").

78993[/snapback]

I see little point in continuing to lob that same denial/accusation back and forth, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave it to the readers (if any) to decide for themselves.