Let the Lies Begin

[Guest Guest]

Seems that with the two democrats locked up in a blow up my opponent battle the D.N.C. has decided to go ahead and get the ball rolling on the campaign lies on their own.

 

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee released a new television advertisement attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain with economic statistics that don't measure up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

With this in mind, will press outlets this campaign season investigate the economic claims being made by the candidates and their supporters, or allow inaccuracies present in this ad (embedded video to the right), and likely others in the months to come, to go completely unchallenged?

 

Consider the following written statement in this ad supposedly answering the question "Are Americans better off than they were 8 years ago?":

 

Household Income Down $1000

 

Where did the DNC get that figure from? The ad doesn't say.

 

Maybe more important, the statistics DON'T come CLOSE to supporting this claim. Let's look first at the most recent Census Bureau data.

 

According to an August 28, 2007, press release, "Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200." In 2000, this number was $42,148.

 

That's a six-year increase of $6,052.

 

Of course, we don't have 2007 and 2008 data from the Census Bureau yet, but it seems logical to assume that real median household income hasn't declined by over $7,000 since 2006.

 

Supporting such an assertion is data from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis website which places total personal income in 2000 as $8.429 trillion. In 2007, this number was $11.659 trillion, a roughly $3.2 trillion increase.

 

So, where did the DNC get its figure that household income has declined by $1000 in the past eight years? Who knows?

 

The same question can be asked of this offering:

 

1.8 Million Jobs Lost

 

Really? Based on what? According to the Labor Department, there are currently 137.846 million non-farm employees in the nation. In December 2000, this figure was 132.485 million (both figures seasonally adjusted). This represents a greater than 5.3 million increase.

 

The much broader Household Survey identified 145.969 million workers as of March 2008. This was only 137.614 in December 2000, representing about an 8.3 million increase.

 

As such, where did the DNC get this figure that 1.8 million jobs have been lost? And, where did they get this number from:

 

Gas Prices Up 200%

 

As with most of these statistics, it's impossible to tell whether the ad is comparing today's data to those exactly eight years ago. For comparison purposes up to this point, I've been relating the most current figures to those available in December 2000.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find gas statistics for that month. Instead, a January 2001 article by National Policy Analysis reported a "2000 summer national average of $1.68 per gallon."

 

Using that number, a 200 percent increase would mean that today's prices were $5.04. According to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report, the current national average is $3.49. This represents a 107 percent increase NOT 200 percent.

 

With these inaccuracies in mind, will media address such egregious factual misrepresentations? Or, like 1992, will Democrats be able to report any economic statistic they want with totally impunity from the press?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Seems that with the two democrats locked up in a blow up my opponent battle the D.N.C. has decided to go ahead and get the ball rolling on the campaign lies on their own.

 

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee released a new television advertisement attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain with economic statistics that don't measure up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

With this in mind, will press outlets this campaign season investigate the economic claims being made by the candidates and their supporters, or allow inaccuracies present in this ad (embedded video to the right), and likely others in the months to come, to go completely unchallenged?

 

Consider the following written statement in this ad supposedly answering the question "Are Americans better off than they were 8 years ago?":

 

Household Income Down $1000

 

Where did the DNC get that figure from? The ad doesn't say.

 

Maybe more important, the statistics DON'T come CLOSE to supporting this claim. Let's look first at the most recent Census Bureau data.

 

According to an August 28, 2007, press release, "Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200." In 2000, this number was $42,148.

 

That's a six-year increase of $6,052.

 

Of course, we don't have 2007 and 2008 data from the Census Bureau yet, but it seems logical to assume that real median household income hasn't declined by over $7,000 since 2006.

 

Supporting such an assertion is data from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis website which places total personal income in 2000 as $8.429 trillion. In 2007, this number was $11.659 trillion, a roughly $3.2 trillion increase.

 

So, where did the DNC get its figure that household income has declined by $1000 in the past eight years? Who knows?

 

The same question can be asked of this offering:

 

1.8 Million Jobs Lost

 

Really? Based on what? According to the Labor Department, there are currently 137.846 million non-farm employees in the nation. In December 2000, this figure was 132.485 million (both figures seasonally adjusted). This represents a greater than 5.3 million increase.

 

The much broader Household Survey identified 145.969 million workers as of March 2008. This was only 137.614 in December 2000, representing about an 8.3 million increase.

 

As such, where did the DNC get this figure that 1.8 million jobs have been lost? And, where did they get this number from:

 

Gas Prices Up 200%

 

As with most of these statistics, it's impossible to tell whether the ad is comparing today's data to those exactly eight years ago. For comparison purposes up to this point, I've been relating the most current figures to those available in December 2000.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find gas statistics for that month. Instead, a January 2001 article by National Policy Analysis reported a "2000 summer national average of $1.68 per gallon."

 

Using that number, a 200 percent increase would mean that today's prices were $5.04. According to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report, the current national average is $3.49. This represents a 107 percent increase NOT 200 percent.

 

With these inaccuracies in mind, will media address such egregious factual misrepresentations? Or, like 1992, will Democrats be able to report any economic statistic they want with totally impunity from the press?

 

 

 

YAWN ZZZZZ........ Who cares loser? What's important is what kind of economic plan Mcain has. I mean really, what a joke.

[Guest Guest]

YAWN ZZZZZ........ Who cares loser? What's important is what kind of economic plan Mcain has. I mean really, what a joke.

He has a plan which is more than either of the dem candidates can say oh wait my bad yes they do tax welfare programs tax oh did i say tax?

But that is another point which has and will be discussed in many other posts on this website.

But as for this post I'm marking you down in the it is fine to not only stretch the truth and egzagerate, but go ahead and tell the neophytes out there that really are not aware of the true story, any ole lie you like. OK thanks for your vote

[Guest Guest]

YAWN ZZZZZ........ Who cares loser? What's important is what kind of economic plan Mcain has. I mean really, what a joke.

Really I'm all ready to hear about it please explain to us in detail so we can make a good choice in November and thanks in advance for paying close attention to these things so you could help out.

[Guest Guest]

Gas is up 16 cents in two weeks.

 

Is that the results of the White House Economic Plan for 2008?

[b4unoit]

Gas is up 16 cents in two weeks.

 

Is that the results of the White House Economic Plan for 2008?

Actually the price of gas in china, Russia or the USA has very little to do with any economic plan in the USA. But now if you would like to blame anybody for preventing this country from doing all that is available to us to keep prices in check. I think you should try looking at the Greene's in congress and also those fine environmental wackos that they bow down to.

[Guest Guest]

Gas is up 16 cents in two weeks.

 

Is that the results of the White House Economic Plan for 2008?

You go ahead and blame the president if it helps you sleep at night we understand.

 

 

@

[Guest al gore's druggie son]

Seems that with the two democrats locked up in a blow up my opponent battle the D.N.C. has decided to go ahead and get the ball rolling on the campaign lies on their own.

 

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee released a new television advertisement attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain with economic statistics that don't measure up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

With this in mind, will press outlets this campaign season investigate the economic claims being made by the candidates and their supporters, or allow inaccuracies present in this ad (embedded video to the right), and likely others in the months to come, to go completely unchallenged?

 

Consider the following written statement in this ad supposedly answering the question "Are Americans better off than they were 8 years ago?":

 

Household Income Down $1000

 

Where did the DNC get that figure from? The ad doesn't say.

 

Maybe more important, the statistics DON'T come CLOSE to supporting this claim. Let's look first at the most recent Census Bureau data.

 

According to an August 28, 2007, press release, "Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200." In 2000, this number was $42,148.

 

That's a six-year increase of $6,052.

 

Of course, we don't have 2007 and 2008 data from the Census Bureau yet, but it seems logical to assume that real median household income hasn't declined by over $7,000 since 2006.

 

Supporting such an assertion is data from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis website which places total personal income in 2000 as $8.429 trillion. In 2007, this number was $11.659 trillion, a roughly $3.2 trillion increase.

 

So, where did the DNC get its figure that household income has declined by $1000 in the past eight years? Who knows?

 

The same question can be asked of this offering:

 

1.8 Million Jobs Lost

 

Really? Based on what? According to the Labor Department, there are currently 137.846 million non-farm employees in the nation. In December 2000, this figure was 132.485 million (both figures seasonally adjusted). This represents a greater than 5.3 million increase.

 

The much broader Household Survey identified 145.969 million workers as of March 2008. This was only 137.614 in December 2000, representing about an 8.3 million increase.

 

As such, where did the DNC get this figure that 1.8 million jobs have been lost? And, where did they get this number from:

 

Gas Prices Up 200%

 

As with most of these statistics, it's impossible to tell whether the ad is comparing today's data to those exactly eight years ago. For comparison purposes up to this point, I've been relating the most current figures to those available in December 2000.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find gas statistics for that month. Instead, a January 2001 article by National Policy Analysis reported a "2000 summer national average of $1.68 per gallon."

 

Using that number, a 200 percent increase would mean that today's prices were $5.04. According to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report, the current national average is $3.49. This represents a 107 percent increase NOT 200 percent.

 

With these inaccuracies in mind, will media address such egregious factual misrepresentations? Or, like 1992, will Democrats be able to report any economic statistic they want with totally impunity from the press?

 

 

 

you're kidding, right? they say gas is up 200% and your professional research shows it at 107%. wow, here i thought it was a high number and it's only 107% (according to an amateur researcher). thanks for making me feel better about it.

i also did not notice the word "defecit" in your well researched data. forgot that one, huh? i guess that doesn't count. i wonder if it is 107% more than when the moron took office. if it's 107 or less, i'm good with that. you're right they are doing a great job. don't quit your day job.

[Guest Guest]

You go ahead and blame the president if it helps you sleep at night we understand.

 

 

@

 

 

So an ex-oilman Prez sitting in office for 7 years could have no bearing on the price of a gallon of gas.

You're right. The President probably has no way to affect any aspect of America's economy. I'm sure he's too busy fiddling around with Iraq, giving them the Eternal Gift of Democracy, to be bothered to notice that gas has doubled in price since he took office, and that it might have something to do with the 2008 -2009 recession he will forever be associated with.

 

It must feel pretty bad to be that powerless over anything when you're just the Leader of the Free World.

 

I know he's also pretty powerless to do anything meaningful about securing our ports and borders since we lost almost 3,000 citizens in that one day when he sat and did nothing for a full 8 minutes after he was told we were under attack.

 

I also know that he and he alone is to be credited with the fact that al qaeda has yet to strike us here at home.

 

Wadda guy.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Seems to me that the gas prices didn't really start to go up until the Democrats took control of Congress.

[Guest Guest]

So an ex-oilman Prez sitting in office for 7 years could have no bearing on the price of a gallon of gas.

You're right. The President probably has no way to affect any aspect of America's economy. I'm sure he's too busy fiddling around with Iraq, giving them the Eternal Gift of Democracy, to be bothered to notice that gas has doubled in price since he took office, and that it might have something to do with the 2008 -2009 recession he will forever be associated with.

 

It must feel pretty bad to be that powerless over anything when you're just the Leader of the Free World.

 

I know he's also pretty powerless to do anything meaningful about securing our ports and borders since we lost almost 3,000 citizens in that one day when he sat and did nothing for a full 8 minutes after he was told we were under attack.

 

I also know that he and he alone is to be credited with the fact that al qaeda has yet to strike us here at home.

 

Wadda guy.

Thank you for the perfect demonstration of a rant by a member of the uneducated.

 

 

@

[GALVATRON]

So an ex-oilman Prez sitting in office for 7 years could have no bearing on the price of a gallon of gas.

You're right. The President probably has no way to affect any aspect of America's economy. I'm sure he's too busy fiddling around with Iraq, giving them the Eternal Gift of Democracy, to be bothered to notice that gas has doubled in price since he took office, and that it might have something to do with the 2008 -2009 recession he will forever be associated with.

 

It must feel pretty bad to be that powerless over anything when you're just the Leader of the Free World.

 

I know he's also pretty powerless to do anything meaningful about securing our ports and borders since we lost almost 3,000 citizens in that one day when he sat and did nothing for a full 8 minutes after he was told we were under attack.

 

I also know that he and he alone is to be credited with the fact that al qaeda has yet to strike us here at home.

 

Wadda guy.

I can't believe he didn't jump up on 9-11 and grab his gun and fly to Afghanistan and single-handedly take out the terrorists that Clinton let go free,what a DELETED,he should have fled to Canada to be a hippie when 9-11 went down then he could have tried smoking pot and not inhaled.Bush sucks,the President before him did so much to secure the borders and Bush lets Bin Ladin go free to kill everybody in his jihad.As for gas prices,I think it is crappy that he owns Mobile and Exxon and he controls the price for a barrel of crude oil and he has the nerve to charge us $3.45 for a gallon of gas,Bush will forever be associated with getting impeached for being a convicted criminal,I'm going to hold my breath for a full 8 minutes,when I wake up I'll be a Democrat and my journey towards the dumbside will be complete.

[Guest osama binladen]

I can't believe he didn't jump up on 9-11 and grab his gun and fly to Afghanistan and single-handedly take out the terrorists that Clinton let go free,what a dick,he should have fled to Canada to be a hippie when 9-11 went down then he could have tried smoking pot and not inhaled.Bush sucks,the President before him did so much to secure the borders and Bush lets Bin Ladin go free to kill everybody in his jihad.As for gas prices,I think it is crappy that he owns Mobile and Exxon and he controls the price for a barrel of crude oil and he has the nerve to charge us $3.45 for a gallon of gas,Bush will forever be associated with getting impeached for being a convicted criminal,I'm going to hold my breath for a full 8 minutes,when I wake up I'll be a Democrat and my journey towards the dumbside will be complete.

 

 

nominee: dumbest post ever.

[GALVATRON]

nominee: dumbest post ever.

Good one,It still sucks that Bush sailed to Spain and asked the Pope if he could wage war on Iraq for no reason("In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.)and caused the great depression.

[Guest osama binladen]

Good one,It still sucks that Bush sailed to Spain and asked the Pope if he could wage war on Iraq for no reason("In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.)and caused the great depression.

 

 

 

i see. each post gets dumber and dumber. you tricked me. isn't there a cartoon or sci-fi show you could be watching now?

[GALVATRON]

i see. each post gets dumber and dumber. you tricked me. isn't there a cartoon or sci-fi show you could be watching now?

I'm a Democrat,what did you expect me to be smart.

[Guest osama binladen]

I'm a Democrat,what did you expect me to be smart.

 

 

 

maybe you could take me to the next star trek convention with you? i could meet all of your cool friends. they are probably up on current events just like you are.

[NY Patriot]

While the Dems argue the Neocons run the country into the ground.

 

Evil feeds Evil.

[GALVATRON]

maybe you could take me to the next star trek convention with you? i could meet all of your cool friends. they are probably up on current events just like you are.

Ouch,now you are just trying to hurt my feelings,I didn't know Star Trek had a convention,pretty cool,we should go together I'll bring one of my Force F-X lightsabers and smash it over your head,if you go without oxygen for 8 minutes you will be a Democrat like me.

[Guest Newsbusters]

nominee: dumbest post ever.

 

 

That's because it's from "NEEEEEEEEEEWS"busters!!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-bashing-mccain

 

Noel Sheppard guiding his sheep. Thank God for BCVoice or "News"busters wouldn't exist!

 

Of course that's not true. There are too many stupid people in the world to have them all fit on BC Voice.

But they sure do try!

 

Remember..We find the poop so you don't step in it!!

 

 

@

[Guest osama binladen]

Ouch,now you are just trying to hurt my feelings,I didn't know Star Trek had a convention,pretty cool,we should go together I'll bring one of my Force F-X lightsabers and smash it over your head,if you go without oxygen for 8 minutes you will be a Democrat like me.

 

 

i know you want to hit me with your lightsaber, but i don't swing that way. maybe one of your dork friends is "confused" about their sexuality. you could help them work through it.

[Guest Guest]

That's because it's from "NEEEEEEEEEEWS"busters!!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-bashing-mccain

 

Noel Sheppard guiding his sheep. Thank God for BCVoice or "News"busters wouldn't exist!

 

Of course that's not true. There are too many stupid people in the world to have them all fit on BC Voice.

But they sure do try!

 

Remember..We find the poop so you don't step in it!!

 

 

@

STFU YOU MORON!!!!!!TAKE YOUR LITTLE DANCING SMILEY AND GO OVER TO THE DAILY KOS AND HUG SOME OF YOUR LIBERAL PLAY FRIENDS.

[Guest osama binladen]

Seems that with the two democrats locked up in a blow up my opponent battle the D.N.C. has decided to go ahead and get the ball rolling on the campaign lies on their own.

 

On Sunday, the Democratic National Committee released a new television advertisement attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain with economic statistics that don't measure up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

With this in mind, will press outlets this campaign season investigate the economic claims being made by the candidates and their supporters, or allow inaccuracies present in this ad (embedded video to the right), and likely others in the months to come, to go completely unchallenged?

 

Consider the following written statement in this ad supposedly answering the question "Are Americans better off than they were 8 years ago?":

 

Household Income Down $1000

 

Where did the DNC get that figure from? The ad doesn't say.

 

Maybe more important, the statistics DON'T come CLOSE to supporting this claim. Let's look first at the most recent Census Bureau data.

 

According to an August 28, 2007, press release, "Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200." In 2000, this number was $42,148.

 

That's a six-year increase of $6,052.

 

Of course, we don't have 2007 and 2008 data from the Census Bureau yet, but it seems logical to assume that real median household income hasn't declined by over $7,000 since 2006.

 

Supporting such an assertion is data from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis website which places total personal income in 2000 as $8.429 trillion. In 2007, this number was $11.659 trillion, a roughly $3.2 trillion increase.

 

So, where did the DNC get its figure that household income has declined by $1000 in the past eight years? Who knows?

 

The same question can be asked of this offering:

 

1.8 Million Jobs Lost

 

Really? Based on what? According to the Labor Department, there are currently 137.846 million non-farm employees in the nation. In December 2000, this figure was 132.485 million (both figures seasonally adjusted). This represents a greater than 5.3 million increase.

 

The much broader Household Survey identified 145.969 million workers as of March 2008. This was only 137.614 in December 2000, representing about an 8.3 million increase.

 

As such, where did the DNC get this figure that 1.8 million jobs have been lost? And, where did they get this number from:

 

Gas Prices Up 200%

 

As with most of these statistics, it's impossible to tell whether the ad is comparing today's data to those exactly eight years ago. For comparison purposes up to this point, I've been relating the most current figures to those available in December 2000.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find gas statistics for that month. Instead, a January 2001 article by National Policy Analysis reported a "2000 summer national average of $1.68 per gallon."

 

Using that number, a 200 percent increase would mean that today's prices were $5.04. According to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report, the current national average is $3.49. This represents a 107 percent increase NOT 200 percent.

 

With these inaccuracies in mind, will media address such egregious factual misrepresentations? Or, like 1992, will Democrats be able to report any economic statistic they want with totally impunity from the press?

 

 

 

 

how does it feel to get busted for completely lifting an article out of a nut job source and never even giving that source any recognition? you even copy the word "i" as if you did the research when you can't even balance your checkbook. you should be banned from posting anything, anywhere. you are a complete joke and should just give up and kill yourself. what's next, are you going to post the constitution and take credit for that?

[Guest Guest]

That's because it's from "NEEEEEEEEEEWS"busters!!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-bashing-mccain

 

Noel Sheppard guiding his sheep. Thank God for BCVoice or "News"busters wouldn't exist!

 

Of course that's not true. There are too many stupid people in the world to have them all fit on BC Voice.

But they sure do try!

 

Remember..We find the poop so you don't step in it!!

 

 

@

Your whole family must be ecstatic over you finally receiving your diploma congratulations wing nut.

OHHHH boy you talk about proud leaving it laying around for all to see.

[Guest 7C3A32]

Your whole family must be ecstatic over you finally receiving your diploma congratulations wing nut.

OHHHH boy you talk about proud leaving it laying around for all to see.

 

 

 

next time, try english.