Just John wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:04:25 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 16, 6:39 pm, Just John
wrote:
...may have been erroneous. My bad. Seems like I may have overstated
the results of the stimulus, or at least a few news sources seem to
think so.

http://tinyurl.com/y9ekn9x

or

http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-D...er~y2009m11d13...

"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as
the actual number of jobs.."

Whoopsy.
--

John H
John, perhaps you don't know this, but his name is Obama.

I know. I was just trying some of the tactics you liberals used a few
years back. I'm sure you never did anything like that, but I always
excuse you when I'm referring to liberals in general.

Besides, since you've got me filtered now, you shouldn't be seeing it
first hand, like you just did.

Talk about Harryisms!

Besides, 'Bama is much easier to type than PLObama. See what I mean.
Finding that 'O' is sometimes a real bitch.

I might try to do better, but you'll never know 'cause you've filtered
me like Harry did.

I'll try again. Name calling is not a valid argument.

You don't understand that you are filtered for a reason, do you?

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:04:25 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 16, 6:39*pm, Just John
wrote:
...may have been erroneous. My bad. Seems like I may have overstated
the results of the stimulus, or at least a few news sources seem to
think so.

http://tinyurl.com/y9ekn9x

or

http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-D...er~y2009m11d13...

"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as
the actual number of jobs.."

Whoopsy.
--

John H

John, perhaps you don't know this, but his name is Obama.

And...I forgot to say it, but you are correct. *He* is the one
screwing the pooch, so to speak.
--

John H

In article ,
om says...

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:04:25 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 16, 6:39*pm, Just John
wrote:
...may have been erroneous. My bad. Seems like I may have overstated
the results of the stimulus, or at least a few news sources seem to
think so.

http://tinyurl.com/y9ekn9x

or

http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-D...er~y2009m11d13...

"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as
the actual number of jobs.."

Whoopsy.
--

John H

John, perhaps you don't know this, but his name is Obama.

And...I forgot to say it, but you are correct. *He* is the one
screwing the pooch, so to speak.

One town in Connecticut reported 100 jobs saved in the Police Force.
Turns out that town only employs 23 Police Officers.. They say some
towns are mistakenly putting the decimal point in the wrong place, some
are counting hours worked (what??) instead of jobs saved. Seems funny
almost all of the hundreds and maybe thousands of mis-reported "jobs
saved" are to the plus side, not the minus side. It is looking more and
more like about 75-90% exaggeration on the part of those reporting, or
counting for the Administration.. Sorry Loogie, no excuse for this, it
ain't an accident...

On 11/17/09 4:22 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
om says...

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:04:25 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 16, 6:39 pm, Just
wrote:
...may have been erroneous. My bad. Seems like I may have overstated
the results of the stimulus, or at least a few news sources seem to
think so.

http://tinyurl.com/y9ekn9x

or

http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-D...er~y2009m11d13...

"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as
the actual number of jobs.."

Whoopsy.
--

John H

John, perhaps you don't know this, but his name is Obama.

And...I forgot to say it, but you are correct. *He* is the one
screwing the pooch, so to speak.

One town in Connecticut reported 100 jobs saved in the Police Force.
Turns out that town only employs 23 Police Officers.. They say some
towns are mistakenly putting the decimal point in the wrong place, some
are counting hours worked (what??) instead of jobs saved. Seems funny
almost all of the hundreds and maybe thousands of mis-reported "jobs
saved" are to the plus side, not the minus side. It is looking more and
more like about 75-90% exaggeration on the part of those reporting, or
counting for the Administration.. Sorry Loogie, no excuse for this, it
ain't an accident...


You're talking like a man who has an actual job and pays taxes, and
everyone knows you have no job and pay no taxes.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.