for the record, here's what I meant by 'lie'
you cited Goebells' quote, which basically said that if you lie a lot and often and consistently, people will come to believe it.
So my understanding is that you were criticizing the government for lying again and again with stats that you and zero hedge don't believe are factual. (your irrationality is not the argument here, but I'd love to have that argument another time)
So by extension, you are saying that anyone that believes the lies you claim the gov't puts out...is a sheeple.
so I took offense.
Because I don't think the gov't lies about these stats.
So I confronted you by saying, in effect, you were lying by interpreting the best consumer confidence # in 7 years was a 'miss'. Because basically it is a lie - not a black/white lie but a shading of the truth to benefit your viewpoint,
And then you tried to show you weren't crafting the data by citing a completely DIFFERENT data series. Which wasn't quite as positive, but still pretty positive.
So who is tellign somethign more true here?
You, who with absolutely no evidence, claims that the gov't manufactures stats to cow the citizens? Who cites the wingnuts at Zerohedge? Who believes the more important fact was a 'miss' ...when the real story was that the # was the highest in 7 years?
Or me, who (shock!) believes the government and doesn't wiggle the facts around?
Fact is, you are a polemicist, trying to use data to prove your point. I am an empiracist, trying to find the truth rather than prove my thesis.