NOAA’s 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast: 45% Chance of Near-Normal; 30% Above Normal

May 27, 2016

  • May 27, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 11

    100% chance that their forecast will turn out like they have for several years now. Wrong!

    • May 27, 2016 at 4:17 pm
      confused says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 3

      Forecast – verb – predict or estimate

      Forecast – noun – a prediction or estimate of future events

      If they’re right 80% of the time, you’ll look at the 20% and call them failures without understanding what an estimate is!

      Estimate – verb – roughly calculate…the value, number, quantity, or extent

      Estimate – noun – an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something.

      • May 30, 2016 at 9:24 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 4

        This dolt has stated time after time that the Farmer’s Almanac is more accurate than weather forecasters. He is mentally disabled.

        • May 31, 2016 at 8:47 am
          Woolly Bear says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Come on UW, you know darn well that I’m far more accurate at forecasting the weather than any ol’ meteorologist! And, I’ve been doing it far longer!

          • May 31, 2016 at 9:57 am
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 11

            Woolly, the current crop of meteorologists have all the satellite data, internet, radar and they are still far off in their predictions. They look at the camera and sheepishly say that they told us it was a 50% chance a storm would move in. That means nothing more than there was a 50% chance they would be wrong.

          • May 31, 2016 at 10:46 am
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 3

            clearly you do not understand what “% chance of” really means with weather. let me try to enlighten you, knowing full well you either will ignore it entirely or come up with some kind of cockamamie off-topic reply.

            CHANCE OF RAIN = COVERAGE x CONFIDENCE

            If there is a 100% probability of rain covering one half of a city and a 0% probability of rain on the other half of the city, that’s a 50% chance of rain.

            A 50% chance of a rainstorm covering the entire city would also lead to a 50% chance of rain.

            Say in Dallas there is a 50% chance of rain and I am 100% confident that 50% of our area will see measurable rain of 0.01” or more. The equation is

            50% (Coverage) x 100% (Confidence) = 50% chance of rain

            What if I think that 50% of our area will have rain, but I’m only 50% confident in that forecast?

            50% (Coverage) x 50% (Confidence) = 25% chance of rain

            You can see even though the same area will be covered, we’re not as confident in the forecast. There are times they’re 100% confident in the forecast, but just 20% of the coverage area is expected to see rain. In this case, the chance of rain is 20%.

            Only when they are 100% confident in the forecast does the rain chance equal the coverage of rain.

          • May 31, 2016 at 11:42 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 6

            Good points, confused. I’ve pointed out his flawed thinking on this topic, but since it was not coming from Limbaugh he ignored it. He has also made comments indicating he thinks a 50% chance of rain means it will rain half the day.

            He has absolutely no understanding of statistics, which is shocking for a person in an industry based on probability.

            Forecasters predict a 50% chance of rain, and “That means nothing more than there was a 50% chance they would be wrong.” Wow, as stupid as they come.

            A shorter less technical version of confused’s post is that on days with these weather conditions it rained 50% of the time, but Agent sees that as an incorrect forecast, because he’s clueless on every single topic. Imagine paying this moron to give you insurance advice on something affected by weather, or climate, or for that matter, reality. “Oh, I based it on the Farmers Almanac, because satellites and radars are usually wrong.”

      • May 31, 2016 at 10:01 am
        Yogi Polar Berra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 9

        There is a 100% chance that weather forecasters will say their forecasts have a 50% chance of error.

        • May 31, 2016 at 10:52 am
          confused says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 3

          that is 100% wrong. we just had a 100% chance of rain in our area yesterday. guess what? it rained. let’s all learn what “percent chance of rain” really means before we blast weathermen for being wrong all the time. after all, they are just forecasting here, and let’s not forget:

          Forecast – verb – predict or estimate
          Forecast – noun – a prediction or estimate of future events

          Estimate – verb – roughly calculate…the value, number…
          Estimate – noun – an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something

          • June 1, 2016 at 7:35 pm
            Yogi Polar Berra says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            Re-read my comment… slowly.

          • June 2, 2016 at 3:19 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            i re-read your comment slowly, but you still wrote that weathermen will say there’s a 50% chance of error in their forecast, which is not accurate when they report there’s a 100% chance of precipitation

          • June 2, 2016 at 7:32 pm
            Yogi Polar Berra says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            @Confused: So, you’re saying that, because a weatherman says there’s a 100% chance of precipitation, then it will rain 100% of the time. Got it.

            I predict there’s a 50% chance you will see the error in your logic.

          • June 3, 2016 at 9:29 am
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            no, that’s not what i am saying. you said weather forecasters will always say there’s a 50% chance of them making an error.

            i said if they’re reporting a 100% chance of rain, they are NOT also saying there’s a 50% chance of them making an error.

            let me try this rephrasing:

            if a forecaster says there is a 100% chance of rain, there is a near certainty that it will rain as they predicted. if they say there’s a 100% chance of rain 100 times, odds are it will rain close to 90-95 times out of those 100 instances. if they say 100% chance of rain 100 times, they are NOT saying “we could be wrong 50 out of those 100 times”

            does that clear up any confusion you have about what i’m saying?

        • June 1, 2016 at 2:38 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 6

          Yogi, Mark Twain once said that their are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics which are tried to bolster a weak argument.

          • June 1, 2016 at 3:19 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            Agent,

            So, how is one to bolster their quantitative argument without statistics?

            Keep quoting fictional writers to support your position. I will stick with facts, data and statistics.

            If only your Economics professors could see you now.

          • June 1, 2016 at 3:50 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Dusting off a 100+ year old sarcastic comment to try and “prove” statistics are just lies is laughable.

            Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.

            Results of statistical analyses can ONLY be understood in the whole context of the question.

            Truth lies in using plain language to summarize what the statistic means in the real world in its proper context. Confused did exactly that.

            In this case, Confused gave you the context of what “% chance of precipitation” actually means and how it’s calculated, and you just flat out ignored it.

          • June 1, 2016 at 7:36 pm
            Yogi Polar Berra says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            The Clintons invented a 4th category; mis-rememberings.

          • June 2, 2016 at 12:55 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 5

            You aren’t arguing the point correctly either.

            You’re far too concerned with saying Agent is wrong.

            This particular tangent is absurd. All of you need to go look in the mirror, and tell yourselves you are better than this and walk it off.

            Agent only said that these guys tend to be wrong.

            Then confused gave a definition that doesn’t matter. Whether or not the verb is what he says it is, doesn’t change the likelihood that the people forecasting are wrong.

            Agent can believe they are wrong, and he doesn’t have to disprove a scientific theory precisely because it is a “theory” which then has only a certain percentage of probability, which both you and confused seem to have missed.

            Is he supposed to say oh you’re right, so it can be wrong because of the fact that it has a probability of being wrong!

            Do you see how stupid that is? If he says oh you’re right it was just a forecast, he is essentially saying what he said before: The forecast can be wrong.

            The only varying degree here is that you guys want to try and make Agent stupid by saying he’s against science, which is morally and ethically wrong, whereas agent is just being passionate and who he is, which is morally and ethically right.

            You and confused need to knock it off.

            I have never tolerated this type of behavior from a couple of jocks, and I won’t now from a couple of wannabe hotshot know it alls. Leave agent the hell alone when he makes small comments like this.

          • June 2, 2016 at 2:08 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 2

            “Is he supposed to say oh you’re right, so it can be wrong because of the fact that it has a probability of being wrong!”

            No. He’s just supposed to learn what a ____% chance of precipitation really means so next time the weatherman says that, he’ll understand what they’re actually saying.

            “The only varying degree here is that you guys want to try and make Agent stupid by saying he’s against science”

            No need. He did that on his own implying he agrees with Mark Twain’s (sarcastic) comment that statistics are just another form of lying.

          • June 2, 2016 at 6:14 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, that’s idiotic. Agent said a 50% chance of rain as a forecast means they are just saying there is a 50% chance they are wrong. It was pretty clearly explained why this is not correct, and oddly, as usually, your problem is with people pointing out that he is wrong, not his total ignorance. You also incorrectly claim the probability used is a scientific theory. This shows a lack of knowledge on statistics, probability, and theories/science. You, like Agent, don’t even seem to know the basics here, which confirms why you are so wrong in many of your rambling, incorrect rants about data in economics, climate, etc., as well as explaining why you can’t seem to determine what is a good study and an outright fraud.

            Can you please expand on your “ethically and morally wrong” statement? Because pointing out a racist, sexist, bigot is wrong about everything is not morally wrong although supporting the policies you two support is.

          • June 2, 2016 at 7:02 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            ““Is he supposed to say oh you’re right, so it can be wrong because of the fact that it has a probability of being wrong!”

            No. He’s just supposed to learn what a ____% chance of precipitation really means so next time the weatherman says that, he’ll understand what they’re actually saying.

            “The only varying degree here is that you guys want to try and make Agent stupid by saying he’s against science”

            No need. He did that on his own implying he agrees with Mark Twain’s (sarcastic) comment that statistics are just another form of lying.”

            Rosenblatt, I hate to throw an insult in but you deserve it here.

            From the beginning, his first comment when he says he doesn’t buy this forecast,

            “He’s just supposed to learn what a ____% chance of precipitation really means so next time the weatherman says that, he’ll understand what they’re actually saying.”

            His original comment had nothing to do with what you put above. From the get go he’s supposed to magically predict how someone will try to make it look like he doesn’t know science because he doesn’t trust this forecast? Not to mention this is scientific theory. Using verbiage doesn’t change that the theory here isn’t proven and no one here is qualified to challenge it.

            Confused is arguing about HOW agent said what he said, and is trying to define what agent said to say how it goes against science.

            All agent said, was he doesn’t trust the forecast.

            Is this seriously what all you kids do these days?

            This is why we need Trump. This is pathetic.

            We have become so PC and tight on what we say as a nation, that saying you don’t trust a forecast in the wrong way must mean something about science right?

            George Carlin quote below READ IT. The younger generation has a need for the demolition of pc and people like Ron and confused doing the above.

            If anything, sadly enough, they need more people who take off the gloves like UW (though he’s often wrong)

          • June 3, 2016 at 2:53 am
            actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            “Not to mention this is scientific theory. Using verbiage doesn’t change that the theory here isn’t proven and no one here is qualified to challenge it.”

            Shut up Bob you are rambling and full of …. This quote is pure ignorance. Look at the comments above by the people who know what they are talking about. As a poster pointed out already a forecast is basically saying on days with these conditions it rains X% of the time, and they add a confidence interval essentially. It’s not complicated and not some unproven scientific theory. Nobody is qualified to challenge it, but you are qualified to defend it, ok, nice arrogant superiority complex.

            You are defending Agent on this because you are a climate change denier like he is, not because you know about this.Just go away, your long pointless incorrect filibusters are played out. Agent did not only say they are wrong.He made a statement showing he has no clue about how basic forecasts work. As a few others have said, he also claims the FA is more accurate. Thankfully Ron, Rosenblatt and uw have totally destroyed your credibility because I used to take you seriously.

          • June 3, 2016 at 8:12 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Bob: “All agent said, was he doesn’t trust the forecast.”

            Wrong. Agent literally said “a 50% chance…means nothing more than there was a 50% chance they would be wrong.”

            Agent defined what a 50% chance of a storm meant to him.

            Bob: “Then confused gave a definition that doesn’t matter.”

            Huh? Please explain how confused correcting Agent on what a “50% chance of a storm” REALLY means doesn’t matter.

            Agent was wrong when he wrote his “means nothing more than…” line, so Confused explained what the metric actually means and how it’s calculated.

            Bob: “From the get go he’s supposed to magically predict how someone will try to make it look like he doesn’t know science because he doesn’t trust this forecast?”

            No. From the get-go Agent said “the metric means this” and confused explained “no, the metric REALLY means this.”

            If I write “all a 100% loss ratio means is that losses equal investment income” and someone replied with “no. loss ratio = (paid + reserve + expenses) % premium, would you go off on a tangent about how their reply had nothing to do with what I said?

        • June 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Yogi, you can explain it to them, but you can’t understand it for them.

  • May 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 7

    Yes, and just because Agent turns to the FA for his weather does not mean he disrespects and belittles women. Trump, on the other hand, does belittle women time and time again. And, Agent supports Trump. If Agent doesn’t want to be associated with belittling women, he should distance himself. And, there is a 100% chance he won’t.

    • June 1, 2016 at 7:33 pm
      Yogi Polar Berra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      You’re exaggerating. Trump only belittles a little portion of all women. He’s a little women belittler.

  • June 1, 2016 at 8:44 am
    CL PM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    Weather tonight: dark. Turning partly light by morning. – Al Sleet, your Hippy Dippy Weatherman.

    • June 1, 2016 at 1:20 pm
      NYguy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      Always good to have a little George Carlin in the discussion!

      • June 1, 2016 at 1:50 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        I agree, but some out here will just think Carlin was a crazy liberal and you’ll be down-voted as a result.

        • June 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 2

          So in essence if you didn’t gather by my quoting of George Carlin and my knowledge of his work:

          I actually have watched quite a bit of him.

          And I don’t consider him to be a crazy liberal. Considering my libertarian leanings, I consider him to be similar to myself, though just a tad too far on the anti religious side, but who isn’t when they have a dominating Catholic upbringing and he’s far older than I. It was probably worse for him.

          Have you looked into Gary Johnson? Yeah, he reminds me a little of George Carlin. He never holds back the way he phrases things and really gives a “I don’t give a @%#@” attitude. He casually throws in the S word in his interviews and brings up smoking pot. His motivations are good and is a nice guy. And even he understands the advantages of lower taxes. I know, I know, that sounds like it’s out of nowhere, but mainly it is to prove a point.

          He has no reason to support such a position considering he loses, and isn’t well connected, doesn’t make enough to fall into the corporate or marginal rates he would lower, if it was not a position that he believed would do good.

          Every time a republican tries to lower taxes though…

          Liberals go crazy saying how anti middle class they are.

          • June 2, 2016 at 6:00 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Libertarian, ha! Yeah, aside from deporting people, killing the families of terrorists, blocking people from entering the nation based on their religion and ethnicity, and dozens of other positions you have taken. You are a perfect example of a libertarian in so far as you buy into conspiracy theories, believe fully in completely debunked economic theories, and are an intellectual lightweight, pseudo-intellectual and say you are a libertarian because you think it makes you seem intelligent. You want to benefit off others, pass on externalities, and don’t want to pay taxes, and might be in favor of expanded social rights to certain gross, that’s not libertarianism though.

            Big shock you are a Johnson fan, he’s an outright fraud, far right-winger pretending to be libertarian. He’s in favor of drones to kill people without trial, employs far right-wing Minutemen, people associated with nativist hate groups, birthers, he stiffened prison offenses for even minor offenses (except his own, of course) –including Marijuana until he turned to the national stage and could benefit from pretending to be against it–he shipped prisoners to outside prisons when they were seeking redress, after his policies were continually destroying the state’s prison system and drastically increasing violence. Read the Ames article on him being a scam as a starting point for any people actually interested in him. He grabbed that label solely to cash in.

          • June 2, 2016 at 6:55 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            “Libertarian, ha! Yeah, aside from deporting people, killing the families of terrorists, blocking people from entering the nation based on their religion and ethnicity, and dozens of other positions you have taken. ”

            Bull. Shit. That’s all I have to say to that.

            I have specifically called you wrong on the killing of families of terrorists and proved where your belief came from on that, from combining two quotes that were taken out of context. He never said he will kill the families of terrorists. In one he said he will go after the families as well, and that one was spoken when in the same conversation he was talking about the terrorist use children and families to attack us, as in shoot the walking bombs they use. You may not like that kind of talk, but it is what he was talking about, and the other was regarding going after families in a broad sense, and never referred to killing. You are a liar.

            Moving to blocking people from the nation based on their religion and ethnicity: That is not the basis. The basis on the Mexican front is on how much immigration we can handle. We have regulation of immigration for a reason. An open border is not acceptable, and roughly half of all Mexicans presently here are here illegally, making it harder for people who come in legally to do so.

            Moving to the religious aspect of that: Sorry buddy, the Middle East does have an Islamic Faith issue and is wartorn due to it. It is not fascist to stop immigration and refugees from dangerous nations. NO ONE has a RIGHT to come into this country. We take people when it has low risk high reward. If we take high risk low reward, we harm the country, and our ability to help other countries. I am about the MAXIMUM amount of help in the world, and YOU are for free reign chaos.

            The next time you fucking make up shit about my beliefs, pay the fuck attention to my replies, because I’ve dealt with this over ten times with you UW!!!! You can’t just make shit up!

          • June 2, 2016 at 7:08 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            And I have to point this out UW:

            You know damn well I argued against Trump ever saying he would kill families. And here you are arguing that I said killing terrorists families was ok BY ASSOCIATION.

            This is your weakness, and it is the root of racism and bigotry.

            If I support Trump, I must be in line with your label of him after all, correct?

            When I personally say I am against such a thing,

            And I say that I don’t believe Trump made that statement,

            YOU CANNOT SAY I’M ALLIED WITH TRUMP AND YOU MUST BE RIGHT ABOUT TRUMP AND THEREFORE I HAVE “TAKEN POSITIONS” ON DOZENS OF MURDEROUS ASPECTS.

            You’re a polarized piece of trash.

          • June 2, 2016 at 8:43 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, you’ve “proved me wrong” on killing the families of terrorists, and then ignored the video I, and others, have posted of Trump making this exact claim, and you’ve done it multiple times. Last time you linked a story where he said it, and the story confirmed this, but said Obama did it. That was your “proof” he never made those claims, which you supported. You obviously didn’t even read the link you provided, or didn’t comprehend it. As always, incompetent, or a liar.

            You can make the claim about the middle east having a religion problem – – that’s wrong – – but you’ve also proven my point about you being full of crap when you claim you are a libertarian. The same goes for blocking immigration, those aren’t libertarian views. Your are the standard, far right strain of nationalist, or fascist that gives sane conservatives a bad name.

          • June 2, 2016 at 8:53 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Also, Bob, moron, I say you support Trump, because you have stated you are supporting him, and that he won’t really try to enact his policies, after arguing, lying and saying he hasn’t proposed the policies people cite. You have been wrong about deporting citizens to Mexico, blocking citizens from Muslim nations, calling for violence at rallies, killing terrorists families, and basically every single thing you have commented on. You are full of crap, straight up, 100%. In most of these cases people provided video and you still denied, and deny it. You are woefully uninformed, or an outright liar on basically every single thing you have said about him, and in my experience you are dishonest to the core, as well as a massive hypocrite.

          • June 3, 2016 at 1:44 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            “Bob, you’ve “proved me wrong” on killing the families of terrorists, and then ignored the video I, and others, have posted of Trump making this exact claim, and you’ve done it multiple times. Last time you linked a story where he said it, and the story confirmed this, but said Obama did it. That was your “proof” he never made those claims, which you supported. You obviously didn’t even read the link you provided, or didn’t comprehend it. As always, incompetent, or a liar. ”

            I further explained the link. My link didn’t prove me wrong. I used a link that went against Trump, but explained why that link was wrong. I did that so you wouldn’t insult the source. It is not incompetence, it is how I have to work with losers like you. I did prove you wrong. And regardless of that, ADD boy, now you’re focusing on whether or not I was right, instead of whether or not you just were wrong about the fact that I am NOT for murdering Muslims, a blatant made up lie on your end.

            “You can make the claim about the middle east having a religion problem – – that’s wrong – – but you’ve also proven my point about you being full of crap when you claim you are a libertarian. The same goes for blocking immigration, those aren’t libertarian views. Your are the standard, far right strain of nationalist, or fascist that gives sane conservatives a bad name.”

            I am not for blocking immigration. We cannot have open borders. We have about 12 million mexican immigrants, 5-6 million who are not documented. The population of Mexico is 120 million.

            It is predicted we will have 40 million in the next decade. We are on track to take a significant portion of Mexico, whose leader is abusing them.

            The states they move into have serious budgetary issues. I am not for the government pushing migration. We cannot have an endless immigration policy.

            Also: Regarding the religion problem in the Middle East: It is not wrong. They have been at war for thousands of years, and Muslims in the country of the U.S. have over half supporting Sharia law, and a quarter are ok with violence as a response to insulting their religion. I’ve already given you the poll.

            It is linked to the religion. It’s about taking low risk high reward immigrants first, and then taking on as many of the others as we can. We cannot take in the full world of roughly 6 billion third world country humans who need help. For every 1 we take in that has a substantial drain, we cannot take in another 5 who are an average drain. For the concept of being “free” you are damning another 4 humans.

          • June 3, 2016 at 1:49 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “lso, Bob, moron, I say you support Trump, because you have stated you are supporting him, and that he won’t really try to enact his policies, after arguing, lying and saying he hasn’t proposed the policies people cite. You have been wrong about deporting citizens to Mexico, blocking citizens from Muslim nations, calling for violence at rallies, killing terrorists families, and basically every single thing you have commented on. You are full of crap, straight up, 100%. In most of these cases people provided video and you still denied, and deny it. You are woefully uninformed, or an outright liar on basically every single thing you have said about him, and in my experience you are dishonest to the core, as well as a massive hypocrite.”

            Actually, you have failed to state he proposed those policies, and I proved with politifact that one you suggested even politifact said he didn’t suggest it. I have not lied, though you just did again.

            Whether or not you said I supported Trump isn’t the issue. It is that you said I support Trump, AND THEREFORE I am ok with policies involving murder. If I’m lying to myself about it, that means I’m not ok with policies involving murder. If I’m not lying, then I’m ok with murder. I cannot however, both be lying to myself and ok with murder, you inconsistent, illogical, moron.

            ” You have been wrong about deporting citizens to Mexico, blocking citizens from Muslim nations, calling for violence at rallies, killing terrorists families, and basically every single thing you have commented on. You are full of crap, straight up, 100%. In most of these cases people provided video and you still denied, and deny it. You are woefully uninformed, or an outright liar on basically every single thing you have said about him, and in my experience you are dishonest to the core, as well as a massive hypocrite.”

            Really, what have I been wrong about specifically. Cite it. The video of a speech taken out of context is not relevant. When I then clarify the further words in the video, with more links, and the context, I have already taken your video into consideration.

            I am not dishonest, or a liar, or a murderer. People who say these things are insane, delusional, have mental health issues, as I suspect you do.

            If you want to be aggressive,expect pushback. When someone says someone has been wrong on all things, as you have often said about me, THEY are the issue. I in this post said I can respect your not being pc (it’s called being fair) and complimented you despite your tendency to be wrong. I have not said you are always wrong, have I?

            One of us has a partisan issue, the other does not.

            Show me some criticism about Obama and democrats why don’t you? Or any democrat? Can you? In a real world example as I often have? Or are you that indoctrinated, child?

            Prove me wrong!

          • June 3, 2016 at 2:02 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            And as a side comment UW:

            I don’t say prove me wrong in arrogance.

            I would commend your behavior to prove you are not indoctrinated. I would like to be proven wrong on this one.

            I would like to give you a high five and say “right on, these guys are all bastards”.

            Then I can go my way and say I believe Trump is best, and you can go yours and say you believe it is Hillary or Sanders. I don’t believe that you going that way means you are a tyrant, just misled. But you…

            You think it defines all that is wrong in the world that Trump supporters exist. That’s a type of racism.

          • June 3, 2016 at 2:18 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I really don’t have time for any more posts here, the reason I often leave is when these conversations are just back and forth that go nowhere UW.

            To you and Ron I simply cannot keep hammering home the same points.

            I’m probably going to stop responding much past here, so have a good day.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:19 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Ah, you’re back UW.

            I see the dislikes shooting up for me and likes correspondingly going up for you.

            When I see a response in line with that, likely to happen any minute now it just confirms who is doing it.

            How stupid do you think I am, not to catch you?

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:21 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I mean really, all your and my posts but not similar posts that I made for Ron were just flown through at epic speed and liked on your end and disliked mine.

            The crowd seems awfully focused on just my comments to you, and seems to be ignoring mine with Ron eh?

            You’re such a blow hard. I somewhat think you may actually be one of Clinton’s paid social media activists.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:21 pm
            actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Hey bob you fucking idiot, they keep hammering at the same points because you bring up the same shit and the same lies in every single story. They BOTH posted video of Trump saying he would kill terrorists, and if they didn’t care about their lives you have to go after their family, because they care about their lives. You lied and said it was a misquote drawn from 2 different quotes. They showed a video showing this was wrong and you still deny it. You are an apologists, and deny everything he says, explain it away as a misinterpretation, and then lie and disappear claiming people are being mean to you. Usually after calling them names first. Nobody is even denying he said this anymore except the dumbest of the dumb.

            I know you have proven you don’t understand politics, and can only lie about policy, but Trump has not put forward a single policy going by your stupid definition, because he does not, and cannot do that. He will get “all the best people” to do it. But, he has supported a ton of crazy views, including killing the innocent families of terrorist, before denying it, and then saying it again, and using nuclear weapons against terrorist meaning he would also kill innocent people with nukes. Just claim you won like you always do and leave. Then everybody wins, because you keep your fake sense of being informed and we don’t have to listen to your stupid shit.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I have to emphasize this again because right now I caught the timing perfectly:

            Even in between and skipped all around, all posts that are replies that are linked to you are disliked, even skipping around my posts to Ron, Agent, Confused, and every other post.

            All disliked out the kazoo and all yours suddenly liked.

            Wow. You’re so popular UW!

            Does that make you feel in control, buddy boy? I can see how much you need that, despite how much you accuse others of it.

            I’m not letting this one go. It shows horribly poor ethics, sportsmanship, etc. You lost this one fair and square, keep off the dislikes and likes, loser.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            “Hey bob you fucking idiot, they keep hammering at the same points because you bring up the same shit and the same lies in every single story. They BOTH posted video of Trump saying he would kill terrorists, and if they didn’t care about their lives you have to go after their family, because they care about their lives. You lied and said it was a misquote drawn from 2 different quotes. They showed a video showing this was wrong and you still deny it. You are an apologists, and deny everything he says, explain it away as a misinterpretation, and then lie and disappear claiming people are being mean to you. Usually after calling them names first. Nobody is even denying he said this anymore except the dumbest of the dumb.”

            And you proved my point again. At what point in that video did he say “kill” when he said going after the families? Could he have meant, that you have to track the families of terrorists to find the terrorist?

            Yes!

            At no point in that video did he say kill. That is one of the two quotes I said they are mixing.

            Now another quote, he does mention killing. And that is when he says you have to shoot the family member they use as a bomb. You just proved my point, AGAIN. You are ignoring what I’m saying and then are calling me a liar and a fool.

            Answer the question: Did Trump say he would kill Muslims in that video? Not without inserting a context or a word buddy boy!

            “You are an apologists, and deny everything he says, explain it away as a misinterpretation, and then lie and disappear claiming people are being mean to you. ”

            I’m a realist, and when someone lies again and again, and when I finally say I’m done, then they use it against me, it creates a circle I can’t win. I just corrected you AGAIN you were wrong AGAIN and when I finally give up, that must mean I’m lying and disappear saying people are mean to me? I have NEVER said people are mean to me. I have said to keep the fuck on topic, and that an insult doesn’t prove a point. This cannot be thrown back at me, as I know you will attempt to do. Because I don’t mind the insult, as long as it isn’t linked to the concept. For example: You agree with Trump and must therefore be ok with Murder, you liar. See, now me being a liar is linked with me being ok with murder. THAT is wrong and not ok.

            “I know you have proven you don’t understand politics, and can only lie about policy, but Trump has not put forward a single policy going by your stupid definition, because he does not, and cannot do that”

            No, you are basing people’s reactions to Trump to make this statement. You are not accurately saying my opinion. I have proven I do understand politics. Again, you just used an insult to attack my character which cycles around to say I don’t know politics and is why I can’t be knowledgeable in politics, instead of look at the facts! For God’s sakes…

            “But, he has supported a ton of crazy views, including killing the innocent families of terrorist, before denying it, and then saying it again, ”

            I have already proven this incorrect AGAIN and you lied AGAIN and here you say he took it back, as in he said it TWICE. You have ONE example. Citation needed, you cannot just state someone said something without evidence. Show me a clip where he says the words he will kill Muslim families. This is really old.

            “and using nuclear weapons against terrorist meaning he would also kill innocent people with nukes. Just claim you won like you always do and leave. Then everybody wins, because you keep your fake sense of being informed and we don’t have to listen to your stupid shit.”

            Again, if I leave, I’m wrong, if I stay, I’m wrong, I prove you wrong, and then you say you proved me wrong.

            My fake sense of being informed while you make up fake facts, bullshit kid.

            Now let’s try to debate one of my topics instead of writing a character assault with no citations and no facts.

            Choose a topic I have said, let’s debate about it, ethically instead of the sleazeball shit you just did, fuck you.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:38 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            On the Nuclear strikes aspect:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/

            You love Kennedy correct? Or do you just love War when Democrats do it like him, and Obama with Libya, killing a dictator he didn’t like to insert his own people, like Putin I might add.

            Trump has said he will not take nukes off the table, and he will use them if need be. Many presidents have said the same thing. While I do believe using nukes is always bad, I believe there are many who would fear being nuked and the threat would stop a considerable sum of people who would otherwise act. The goal isn’t to use nukes. It is to demonstrate willingness to act if need be.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:44 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            My dad used to talk about this Kennedy thing and the fear of war during that time frame.

            He was terrified back in those days. It is why he made sure he graduated, went to college, and got a good job. He did not want to be drafted.

            He talked about how close we came to war during Kennedy’s presidency. Kennedy was praised for threatening to use nukes… But republicans…..

            Well, they are war mongers.

            Ya got me, ya got me. You are clueless on history and politics, you know only that which relates to what, the last election? What bills do you know of that Bush W passed? Why don’t you list 5? How about some he tried to?

            Why don’t you list one you like from him? I could list a few I like from Obama, or like UW or you an indoctrinated, uneducated, moron?

            I’m suck of dealing with idiots. Stem cell research: Tell me the difference between Bush’s bill and Obama’s. Do you know? Which type did Bush pass, which type did Obama? Obama didn’t expand it, he switched it. Instead of funding both.

            What about the retirement funds Bush proposed? I even had Ron admit that one didn’t sound like a bad idea. Ultimately he blames Bush w and republicans for not passing it since they had a majority, but we all know how blocking occurs and they didn’t have a super majority.

            Ok let me start:

            The idea of having to opt out of a 401k retirement plan and to be auto enrolled Obama presented. I think it’s a good idea.

            Now you. Go ahead. Don’t be shy.

          • June 5, 2016 at 10:52 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “I have to emphasize this again because right now I caught the timing perfectly:

            Even in between and skipped all around, all posts that are replies that are linked to you are disliked, even skipping around my posts to Ron, Agent, Confused, and every other post.”

            WTF are you talking about? The posts by Ron or maybe Rosenblatt seem to have the most votes each way. Nothing but paranoid conspiracy theories from you jokers. You cannot believe anybody disagrees with you. Maybe it’s all the bots the liberals programmed to hit the sites. You are a true nut job.

          • June 6, 2016 at 1:52 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Difference between Obama and Bush on stem cells? Bush bought into extreme, far right-wing religious BS and banned federal spending on the most effective method of stem cell research, embryonic research, because he bought into the lie that using these cells instead of just burning them would be harmful. This ban basically put the US a decade behind in yet another category. Obama thankfully ended this.

            “I am not for the government pushing migration. We cannot have an endless immigration policy.”

            This means absolutely nothing, it is a way to seem intelligent, and pretend you have thought about it. If you are in favor of blocking immigration you cannot say you are a libertarian, and cannot say you believe in free markets. Free markets cannot exist without freedom of movement for workers. I am not for unlimited free movement of workers, but I do not get on a high horse, and pretend to be for free markets as a reflexive response to everything I don’t like as some people do, including you. You don’t even know the basics, all you know are your well-rehearsed right-wing talking points.

            I’ve never commented on Kennedy, but of course, as always, you presume I am a big fan because he is on team Blue, and all you know is Team Blue vs Team Red, although you pretend to like a few bills meaning you are independent and a Very Serious Person.

            ” I don’t believe that you going that way means you are a tyrant, just misled. But you…”

            This is one of your many problems. Clinton nor Sanders have put forward any bills indicating they are tyrants, but you have to assume that it’s an equal situation, and that people would think that. Trump on the other hand has put forwards dozens of ideas, and made hundreds of statements proving he is a tyrant. He is the first president I know of to openly run as a tyrant. No, you might not say I am supporting a tyrant for supporting the Democratic Party in this election, but if you did I would call you an idiot, and I would be right.

            I think I am done with you Bob, I honestly think you are very mentally unstable and do not want to contribute to it. You come unhinged very easily, and believe/create too many insane conspiracy theories–although far fewer than some others here.

  • June 2, 2016 at 12:38 pm
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    Oy vey.

    You just say these things that are so backwards. How many kids in your high school growing up used someone being open minded as an insult? Now how many on the basis of being closed minded? How many people used the insult bible thumper, and religious zealots? Now how many used atheist, or anti theist zealotry as an insult? It’s not exactly common to do so. There are conservatives who do it, mind you, but the vast majority do not. It is all about probability and the prevalence. The point here is: It is not typical to label someone in the public eye as a liberal whack job. It is however vice versa, and can ruin your career. When was the last time you saw someone fired for being pro gay marriage? For being for transgender bathrooms? For writing about their opinions of integrating marriage into the Church, even by passing laws of force? You can be a forceful anti religious person and it can be something that doesn’t harm your career or get you fired. There seems to be a double standard, and a typical label, a liberal whack job is not it.

    Also, George Carlin was a lot closer to a Libertarian. He mocked both sides, and this phrase was clearly geared towards democrats:

    “Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”

    • June 2, 2016 at 4:15 pm
      Carlin Fan #5,470 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      From ‘Napalm and Silly Putty’: “One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is “Libertarian.” People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it’s just one more bull$#@! political philosophy.”
      -Confused

      • June 3, 2016 at 1:29 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        That is not why I call myself a libertarian.

        I don’t care as much about government regulation of abortion even though I find it to be wrong morally.

        I don’t want the government to regulate marijuana, even though I don’t think it’s a good lifestyle choice to rely on it for pleasure.

        I am for low tax environments, and for not allowing the government to handle most things.

        Even my reasoning behind being against gay marriage, as I pointed out to Ron, is not moral issues etc. It is that I don’t think we should give the same government regulations to gay marriage that we do straight ones. The government is declaring equal need, and that’s what I’m not ok with. Especially considering there is not an equal need in one gender vs two gender couples. You can disagree with my opinion on that, but the root of my opinion is in the facet of being against the government handling crud. I am not against gay marriage because of being the flip side of control on moral instead of fiscal issues.

        Republicans do have an issue with controlling moral issues.

        Democrats do have an issue with controlling fiscal issues.

        Get the point? That’s why I consider myself more of a Libertarian, and it’s also why I called George Carlin one. He’s the same, only I don’t apply that logic to churches whereas he does. Meaning he thinks that churches have social control that needs to be broken, while I don’t think Churches impede free will and therefore don’t need to be brought into control.

      • June 3, 2016 at 1:58 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        And further: I actually support Gary Johnson far more than any republican candidate, I am a libertarian. At this point in our history though, a vote for him is a vote for Hillary or Sanders, and I cannot allow that.

        • June 6, 2016 at 11:56 am
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Bob, did you know that Gary Johnson supports Bernie Sanders on 73% of the issues? Perhaps you should re-think. Johnson is no Republican and when he ran briefly the last time, he gathered almost no support.

          • June 6, 2016 at 12:05 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Agent,

            Bob just stated he is not a Republican, but a Libertarian, as is Gary Johnson.

            I am also supporting him. Anyone but the 3 yahoos left from the 2 worthless parties.

            Hey Bob,

            Are you still OK with Agent’s poor reading comprehension?

          • June 6, 2016 at 12:38 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Hey Bob, the non reading comprehension Ron is at it again. I think about everyone in America saw Gary Johnson at the end of the Republican stage 2 elections ago except for poor Ron who is mired in Democratic dogma and voted for Obama twice. He has the nerve to say he is Independent. What a joke!

          • June 6, 2016 at 1:39 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Agent,

            Please tell the class for which party did Gary Johnson just become the nominee?

    • June 3, 2016 at 8:21 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      Hey Bob,

      I am still waiting for the list of all of the bills the Republican Congress has sent to President Obama’s desk since January 2015. Or are you willing to concede that the Republicans in Congress really have no interest in governing and are free-loading off of us taxpayers. Maybe this is the new welfare system for the rich.

      People who advocate for political correctness are not concerned about the words and images, it is the hate and discrimination that is behind those words and images. If the words and images are freely allowed, then the hate and discrimination will soon be freely allowed. Maybe now you will have a better understanding of that issue.

      • June 3, 2016 at 9:30 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        Great point Ron. Bob and people like him aren’t capable of recognizing the actual messages or context behind statements, that’s why they argue there was no racism behind the Birther movement, Reagan’s welfare queens comments, and deny things like the southern strategy. For example, Bob has stated numerous times that Trump’s many comments about women and Mexicans were not sexist or racist even though anyone with any common sense knows they were.

        • June 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          Actually I am.

          Also, racism was not the reason behind the birther movement. You cannot start with racism as the assumption to prove racism on an issue like the birther one. That is not the only aspect that would have caused the birther issue. Obama won typical numbers in his election. If racism were a factor, he would have lost white votes more than a normal democrat. He didn’t. You can’t just make up scenarios. What numbers do you have to prove your birther theory? Is this like game of thrones, and you will say “It is known.”. And then when I make a comment say “You know nothing Bob”.

          Trump has not said anything racist against Mexicans, I challenge you to find one comment.

          To do with Trump insulting people: He insults everyone; The insults have nothing to do with sexism.

          Again. Show me one comment that he said which is racist against Mexicans. I’ll challenge you on that one because I know you can’t find one. I’m well aware about what he has said about women, and they are not sexist comments. They are mean comments about a gender, but not sexist, and there is a difference. You address genders differently. It’s how the world works.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:25 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Brilliant point…if you buy into your stupid theory that Democrats are actually racists, and Republicans are not. However, if you consider that most of the racists are Republicans it wouldn’t affect the numbers much. Also, idiot, you would have to assume the demographics are the same as in the past. They aren’t. And, moron, you would have to assume all the voters were in on it. They weren’t it was a group of far right-wingers, who are and were racists.

            Pseudo-intellectual clown.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:49 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            What the hell did you even just say? Are you literally insane?

            So it’s brilliant to ask for proof,

            Instead let’s just say that one party must be more racist than the other. Ok, show me your proof of that. Prove to me by the numbers that republicans are more racist to democrats, without saying “It is known”. and “you know nothing Jon Snow!”

            “Also, idiot, you would have to assume the demographics are the same as in the past. They aren’t. And, moron, you would have to assume all the voters were in on it. They weren’t it was a group of far right-wingers, who are and were racists.

            Pseudo-intellectual clown.”

            So the people who were racist now aren’t racist, and the ones who weren’t now are, and yet racism is basically something you learn. Hmm…That is what you just said. Don’t fucking call me a clown unless you want to put your money where your mouth is.

            Moving on: YOU would have to identify and prove the demographics, and then YOU would have to prove how they changed, without taking as you worded it “a far right” group and applying it to normalcy.

            If this far right group were politicians, then less republicans would have voted for the 1964 bill than democrats, but in fact, it was vice versa, and the republicans made the first 1957 bill.

            I don’t claim democrats are more racist, what I claim is that there is clearly racism in the liberal history, and the party who fought racism was the republican party.

            To say otherwise is absurd.

            Show your work child. Give me numbers and citations.

        • June 3, 2016 at 7:51 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          In other words:

          I do not have to prove that something is not true.

          I do not have to prove that God does not exist as the starting argument. I have to prove how he does. Racism among a demographic is the same thing. You must start with proof it exists. The one countering you does not have to first prove it doesn’t.

          This is insane kid. Grow up!

      • June 3, 2016 at 1:35 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        “I am still waiting for the list of all of the bills the Republican Congress has sent to President Obama’s desk since January 2015. Or are you willing to concede that the Republicans in Congress really have no interest in governing and are free-loading off of us taxpayers. Maybe this is the new welfare system for the rich.”

        Ad hominem style debate and irrelevant. I already showed you 511 bills that showed republicans have been passing bills and democrats specifically blocked them. Now you’re saying the year doesn’t count until I give you 2015? Why precisely is that? 2015 doesn’t even have a full list compiled yet. Do you have any idea how much time that would take for me to search .gov sites? I bet you do, and that’s why you’re dismissing it.

        “People who advocate for political correctness are not concerned about the words and images, it is the hate and discrimination that is behind those words and images. If the words and images are freely allowed, then the hate and discrimination will soon be freely allowed. Maybe now you will have a better understanding of that issue.”

        So someone saying hateful things encourages hatefulness? I don’t think so. Every time I’ve ever seen a racist comment said, it puts it in the open and people realize how bad racism is. Now my first point: Trump is not saying racist things. My second: Your childlike outlook on the need to sound PC is absurd. You haven’t educated anyone Ron, you don’t have the skills to understand the greater risk that comes with PC style dominance.

        • June 3, 2016 at 2:06 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Bob,

          The 511 bills you mentioned were pre-2014, not post January 2015. And nearly all of them were stopped by Senate Democrats, not President Obama.

          It is actually not difficult at all.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/vetoed-legislation

          As you will see, no tax reform or anything nothing that would help the economy as a whole.

          Of course you do not see it that way. You are not the target. You and Trump can just keep on hating, and we will send laugh at your ignorance while we progress forward toward true equality.

          • June 3, 2016 at 2:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “The 511 bills you mentioned were pre-2014, not post January 2015. ”

            Relevance?

            “And nearly all of them were stopped by Senate Democrats, not President Obama”

            The original topic was that republicans were obstructing. It is however clear, they are not, based on the bills passed and proving democrats as a whole have been obstructing.

            “As you will see, no tax reform or anything nothing that would help the economy as a whole.”

            So you missed the several bills pertaining to business taxes, and you are honestly trying to say republicans have not suggested tax reform? And define “nothing that would help the economy as a whole”

            For the vetoed ones, perhaps, but not as a whole on the items republicans have voted for. The senate is 100 people. The congress is 5 times that. We have numerically more democrats blocking bills than republicans.

            “Of course you do not see it that way. You are not the target. You and Trump can just keep on hating, and we will send laugh at your ignorance while we progress forward toward true equality.”

            Change the context of the conversation, defer blame from Obama as the leader and president of the united states, say he can’t control it, and then claim you will move the country forward by stopping another president who supposedly cannot have an affect on unification by the Obama example but can in the Trump one. Yes. That makes total sense. I will continue to laugh at your ignorance and double standards, child.

          • June 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            In case you missed it:

            Obama is the innocent guy who just can’t stop the democrats from blocking bills, and cannot unify the party. It’s because presidents can have no affect here.

            Trump is the guy who will totally have an affect here. He will move the country backwards. He will make sure we are not unified. Nevermind that you just verified that Obama could not unify the democrat party which shows there is a problem there, and republicans have passed 511 bills, Obama isn’t the problem or democrats.

            Now to move forward, hi ho, hey ho, vote for a democrat because they will move the party forward! I know they can! Even though Obama didn’t! Even though the proof is in the pudding, he just had blocks!

            See the circle with you?

            You’re a moron. Grow up kid.

        • June 3, 2016 at 7:26 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          Bob, moron. You are still ignoring the fact that the bills you claimed proved they were not obstructionists were the fewest amount passed in decades. Keep lying, Lyin’ Bob.

          Hot tip, just because you write something doesn’t make it true.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:53 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Actually no I’m not. My numbers would already account for that. YOU would have to prove the numbers being low has to do with republicans. My numbers prove FOR THE BILLS THAT EXIST YOU FUCK TARD that democrats are blocking the vast majority.

            You’re arguing FOR THE BILLS THAT DON’T EXIST that they must not exist because of republicans. You can’t make that argument.

            For the bills that exist the democrats are blocking it, but you’re saying that must be counterbalanced by the ones that fucking don’t exist?

            Are you insane?

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:55 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            No UW, just because YOU write something it doesn’t make it true.

            You are making a lot of bold assumptions with little to no evidence whatsoever.

            I provided numbers and you literally created imaginary ones.

            Here is a newsflash:

            If you have 500 bills and the majority are blocked with democrats,

            It is no different than having 3000 with the same proportion blocked by democrats.

            Democrats are still the primary obstructionist. Do you know math very good?

            You good at math Tarzan? Huh?

          • June 3, 2016 at 8:03 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            How many bills have they stopped from existing UW. Show me. Provide proof.

            Should I just accept it because you say it?

            You’re a fucking fool. I have given you chances to prove your points and you have never done it.

            Here you have a moderate, and you wonder why your party is having issues, why Clinton is polling close to Trump, someone you think is Hitler. The answer is not that 50% of the population are a bunch of fascists control freaks as you imply!

            The answer is that you are wrong. You and your party have become so used to these attacks you couldn’t know an ally if it hit you in the ass. I’m disenfranchised with your party. And I’ve given you more than enough chance to change that. Every time I say prove it, I mean it kid. Prove it! If Me saying prove it makes me a “psuedo-intellectual” while you simultaneously call republicans uneducated HICKS we have a damn issue kid!

            I’m not just going to believe something because you say some two sentence catch phrase, that is by far your biggest ignorant belief.

            Are you just used to things falling over in front of you? Maybe you’ve failed your entire life and are sick of it? What precisely has caused that idiotic attitude with you? Schizophrenia?

          • June 4, 2016 at 2:48 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, idiot, the bills I cited were passed in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. They are responsible for this, but why bother, you are too biased, stupid, and dishonest to ever change your mind from the first stupid thought that comes into your tiny brain. You refuse to read citations other people post, lie about doing so, and even when something is plainly stated by somebody if you don’t like how it portrays them you refuse to admit they actually said it, or lie and say it means something different, after lying repeatedly saying they never said it. This of course is the other person’s fault in your mind.

            Also Bob, the bills being pushed by Republicans are garbage. They are to defund Obamacare, deregulate industries that have proven they need regulation, and to privatize everything they possibly can. After lying and saying none of the bills you linked to were about weakening Obamacare I looked at the first few and they were all about weakening Obamacare, busting unions/privatizing education, and again, defunding Obamacare. You then said you had no idea and it probably wasn’t true, because you don’t read your links, because you are a fraud.

            “Here you have a moderate, and you wonder why your party is having issues”

            You aren’t a moderate, moron. You are a far right-wing fascist/nationalist. You have supported these policies time after time, as you support and lie about Trump. One of your many problems is that you are close to, if not fully clinically insane.

            ” And I’ve given you more than enough chance to change that. Every time I say prove it, I mean it kid. Prove it!”

            Everything you say is a lie aimed at making people think you are an intellectual who goes off data. For example, you made one of your legendary, idiotic, factually incorrect rants about minimum wage killing jobs. I presented a study showing that the vast preponderance of economic literature did not support this. You lied and said the economist who published this was a liberal university. You did this because you are an idiot. The link was from a blog, from a prominent professor at a top university department. The study, which you lied and said you read, but didn’t was an aggregate study of all published work in recent history. You then cited unspecified worksheets you have seen at work as you always do, before citing English majors and disproven “economists”.

            You weren’t trying to look at the data and make up your mind, and reeeeeaaaallly trying to open yourself to be won over by the other party if only they would stop being so mean to you (in between you cursing them out non-stop, after calling for a total ban on anybody who curses, of course, lying hypocrite); you were being a partisan hack, pseudo-intellectual ignoramus, as you are now. You are dishonest to the core, 100% a liar.

            As always, like that 75 IQ holding Agent, you seem to think anybody who disagrees with your racist, disproven, anti-science, anti-intellectual arguments is a failure at life, even though you know nothing about them. I am more successful than you, I am 100% confident. Even if I go by the garbage metric you and Agent seem to prefer–economic success–I probably blow you away. I came from a relatively poor family, in a poor region, and was making over $100K by the time I was 19. I also have an actual degree in economics, unlike the fake BS you push. I don’t personally think these are the measures of success, but you and garbage of your ilk seem to think so.

            “You’re a fucking fool. I have given you chances to prove your points and you have never done it.”

            It is literally impossible to do this to your standard when video evidence saying the exact opposite of what you claim, and exactly what other people claim is dismissed by you. Insane partisans cannot be convinced of anything contrary to their predetermined beliefs.

            Loser

      • June 3, 2016 at 1:51 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        I wonder if even you know the number of 2015, if you’re going to try and say 2014 was an anomaly it’s on you to prove it, not me.

        Why? Because then when I give 2015 you will say it’s two off years and ask for a third.

        But, anyway, here are the bills so far in 2016.

        http://www.gop.gov/bills-by-congress/

        • June 7, 2016 at 12:06 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Bob, allow me to step in with your fight against UW, the idiotic Millenial who will scream at a fence post. I saw a good cartoon that sums it up pretty well on the new generation of word parsing young liberals.

          Picture a father with his arm around the new graduate from college.

          The father said – What did you learn in college?

          The new graduate said – I learned that you are violating my safe space with your Hetero-Normative patriarchal abuses and white privilege micro aggression, Dad.

      • June 3, 2016 at 1:55 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        I will also emphasize again: Your question there had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and was an attempt to derail the conversation and make my credibility on a separate issue come into question.

        Are you aware as a side comment, congress works in two year intervals? the bills from 2012 to 2014 were closed out. All that were proposed in 2014 and subsequently passed are known and listed.

        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/

        For 2015-2017, it is not closed out. I suspect you knew this and it’s why you asked for 2017, as the number will be lower until 2017 finishes out and we see how many of the 2015 bills passed.

        You are a piece of garbage. This is unethical type of debate, and I think you know it.

        This is you trying a pc campaign to dominate. It’s exactly why I smash pc morons by throwing in regular style talk.

        • June 3, 2016 at 1:56 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Typo, why you asked for 2015. 2015 passed bills will not be closed out until 2017.

          Some may still pass between now and January of next year.

          • June 5, 2016 at 10:41 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, are you on the spectrum? Serious question.

      • June 6, 2016 at 5:28 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Ron, please tell the class what an idiot Gary Johnson is. It doesn’t matter if he is the nominee of the party of what is happening now.

        • June 6, 2016 at 9:20 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Agent,

          Why don’t you ask Bob? He is also supporting Gary Johnson.

          • June 7, 2016 at 2:13 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Good point Rob, except for when Bob says this earlier in this same thread:

            “Trump is why I finally looked into immigration more. If he hadn’t been a belligerent jack @$$ I would not have. And yes, that is how I think of Trump, despite supporting him.”

            He supports Trump. He supports Johnson. He supports whomever is convenient at that minute to make him seem like a thoughtful, educated person. Of course, he has also stated he does not support Trump, and will not support him under any circumstances, because he is a fraud, a liar, and talks out of both sides of his mouth.

            Non-coincidentally, so do Trump and Johnson, which probably explains why he supports them.

          • June 7, 2016 at 12:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “He supports Trump. He supports Johnson. He supports whomever is convenient at that minute to make him seem like a thoughtful, educated person. Of course, he has also stated he does not support Trump, and will not support him under any circumstances, because he is a fraud, a liar, and talks out of both sides of his mouth.

            Non-coincidentally, so do Trump and Johnson, which probably explains why he supports them.”

            I already explained why I like Johnson, and why I won’t vote for him.

            You can’t prove anything you just said, and all of what you said was a crock.

          • June 7, 2016 at 12:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            You basically don’t know what full reflective thought is.

            If I don’t make a polarized action it actually confuses you.

            It just shows how polarized you are kid.

          • June 7, 2016 at 1:33 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Bob,

            So, based on Agent’s logic, you are a full-blooded, unapologetic, Donald Trump supporter. How does that make you feel inside?

            Where are your principles? Why are you not voting for the candidate you support? I know what your “logic” is, but we need more people to send the message that the outdated 2-party system needs to go away. Make no mistake, there are plenty of Democrats who think that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Donald Trump, so your logic is out the window.

            Vote for who you believe is the best candidate. Otherwise, stay home.

    • June 6, 2016 at 11:32 am
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      Bob, one thing you have to keep in mind while trying to argue with the likes of UW, Confused and Actu is that they are Bernie supporters. Everything they believe in is the exact opposite of reality. Does that clear it up for you? Don’t expect them to use logic or even common sense.

      • June 7, 2016 at 2:14 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        “[…] the exact opposite of reality.”

        Remember when you said unemployment had increased under Obama–less than a month ago?

        • June 7, 2016 at 12:11 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Except it has increased and no Labor Dept stats will make your assertion true. The true unemployment rate in this country is somewhere north of 20%, not the bogus 4.7% you think.

          • June 7, 2016 at 1:39 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Agent,

            Please cite the source of your statistic.

            What was the “true” unemployment rate in 2008?

  • June 2, 2016 at 4:14 pm
    James says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Bob is the most open-minded person on here. Liberals used to be open-minded, but now they’ve become socialists.

    • June 2, 2016 at 7:05 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not…

      If not thank you, BUT

      How do you mean that last phrase? If you modify it to the democratic party is veering toward socialism I’m ok with it. If you mean the youth you’re partially correct that some younger folks are veering toward it as well. I don’t want to label all liberals based on Bernie Sanders stupidity right now.

      • June 3, 2016 at 11:42 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Bob, SARCASM! HUMOR!

        I am all for the LGBT cause – Liquor, Guns, Bacon ….

        Now all the trolls can downvote me to their hearts content.

        • June 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Sounds like the Neanderthal Party platform.

          • June 3, 2016 at 7:04 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Every single generation has thought they were more open minded and progressed than the last.

            It is not a positive to talk about sections of society like they are stuck in the stone age. It is a flaw.

            You’re not different than a caveman. The only difference is you wear a tie and have some further education. Education however does not go hand in hand with morality, gut instincts, who we are within.

            Every century since the early 1000’s someone has spoken about how sexist the prior generation was. It’s getting really old. That’s just a small example.

          • June 5, 2016 at 10:44 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, idiot, most generations have become less and less sexist and racist. For example, you are clearly older, in your lifetime there was a generation in power in the US who saw no problem with not allowing a woman to have her own credit card without a male cosigner. Of course, you will rationalize this as not being sexist, because you always do. You don’t seem to think racism or sexism even exists.

      • June 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm
        James says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Haha, I agree, but they’re not all Sanders supporters. Many are on college campuses, indoctrinating everyone who choose to take their “courses”.

        • June 3, 2016 at 2:09 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Yeah…I am frightened by the level of indoctrination and how early it sets in.

          I say often I did buy into it. I only just recently made my decision regarding immigration. Before hand I never had much of an opinion on it. I actually was turned off by republicans who argued it. I still think many republicans argue improperly about it and come off as sounding heartless, but I am now understanding that we have only a finite amount of people we can support and let through. It’s best to let people through who we make sure won’t be a drain on society so we can help more people overall. I understand that now. It was specifically because it didn’t sound pc that I took so long to take this position, which is why I hate pc forced speech. Trump is why I finally looked into immigration more. If he hadn’t been a belligerent jack @$$ I would not have. And yes, that is how I think of Trump, despite supporting him.

          I identify every area I was indoctrinated and in most cases I was taught a concept early, told if I strayed away I was cruel or hated people, and then people would use PC style speech to limit how one could contradict those established opinions, that were so rigid, even saying we need to secure borders was seen as racist, and made sure I didn’t question it and made the border issue a moral issue rather than a numbers issue.

          I’m clever because I have been an idiot, if that makes any sense. It took me a long time to figure things out due to this indoctrination and PC combo.

  • June 2, 2016 at 7:38 pm
    Yogi Polar Berra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Borrowing from Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to forecast that these comment sections will quickly veer off topic once the liberals arrive and apply their twisted logic, often-incorrect assumptions, and wishful thinking they regard to be ‘facts’.”

    Now, what was the topic, again? I think it had something to do with weather or forecasts or …

    • June 3, 2016 at 9:41 am
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      Hi Yogi, isn’t this fun? These young Socialist word parsing punks and one older one really like to show off, don’t they? The older one voted for Obama twice so we can see him coming a mile off. The younger ones are Bernie supporters who will argue with a fence post and have no idea what the real world is all about. They want all the free stuff and all the taxes imposed on the working folks to fund their free stuff. It really is amazing they have jobs in our industry.

      • June 3, 2016 at 10:13 am
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        sarcastic thank you for not responding to any of the actual topics being discussed and instead going off on one of your insult filled posts. i think there’s a 100% chance you will either ignore this reply or make another insult laden post

        • June 3, 2016 at 2:29 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          That is sarcasm, considering how you started this whole tirade with an insult and the need to say that agent was against science for saying he didn’t trust a forecast.

          But on a serious joking note reply to your post:

          That 100% comment was fairly funny. Good on ya’.

          • June 3, 2016 at 3:07 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            you claim i started this tirade with an insult to say agent is against science. where exactly did i do that? copy & paste.

            my first post was “If they’re right 80% of the time, you’ll look at the 20% and call them failures without understanding what an estimate is!”

            my second was “clearly you do not understand what “% chance of” really means with weather. let me try to enlighten you…”

            no insults there, right? this whole “tirade” started because as rosenblatt already pointed out, agent said “a 50% chance…means nothing more than there was a 50% chance they would be wrong.”

            do you agree with agent that a 50% chance of precipitation only means the weatherman will be 50% wrong or do you agree with me that the metric really means COVERAGE x CONFIDENCE and 50% could really mean there is 100% confidence that it will rain over one half of a city?

            is correcting someone who posts the wrong meaning of a term an insult?

            where exactly did I call Agent a “kid” or “moron” or a “polarized piece of trash” or “ADD boy” or say he “doesn’t have the skills to understand” or that he’s a “piece of garbage”? THOSE are insults, yes??

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:11 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “clearly you do not understand what “% chance of” really means with weather. let me try to enlighten you…””

            That is not a condescending reply when someone says they think a forecast is absurd? You basically inferred he was a child who didn’t understand basic science, which I assume you have a degree in correct? Or are you just playing word games?

            This isn’t scrabble, and you had no real reason to break into a debate about the definitions of certain words in reply to someone calling a forecast a crock. His comment didn’t touch on those definitions. You established them while talking like he didn’t know science.

            It started the tirade.

            “o you agree with agent that a 50% chance of precipitation only means the weatherman will be 50% wrong or do you agree with me that the metric really means COVERAGE x CONFIDENCE and 50% could really mean there is 100% confidence that it will rain over one half of a city?”

            Irrelevant. I see you trying the typical twist here. We don’t need a debate on that. Can someone not simply say “I disagree with this forecast” without you implying they don’t understand science? How do you get up and even talk to someone each day without contradicting everything they say and making a big deal of it? Some things are just small one off comments, not worth breaking into song an dance regarding Confused!

            “here exactly did I call Agent a “kid” or “moron” or a “polarized piece of trash” or “ADD boy” or say he “doesn’t have the skills to understand” or that he’s a “piece of garbage”? THOSE are insults, yes??”

            Irrelevant because my comments are reactionary. Also, false equivalency and ad hominem.

            I can call someone a moron when they are a moron.

            I can call someone a kid while they act like one debating with me.

            Will we really do this same cycle each time KID?

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:14 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            And as a side comment:

            I EXPECT someone to respond when I call them an idiot calling me one, and for one of us to be right and wrong.

            You didn’t expect for a big tirade to come out of you saying agent was a fool and didn’t know science?

            Can you or can you not establish a bigger picture?

            Without then trying to apply it to someone else or another circumstance? It limits your ability to think if you cannot state how things differ, while seeing them all as the same.

            Learn to analyze and break things down.

            It is not how you are similar, but how you are different, however that Harry Potter quote goes.

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:21 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            bob, i do not think you and i are reading the same post from agent.

            i claim he posted an incorrect meaning of a metric and so i posted a response explaining said metric. you claim he didn’t touch on the definition at all and just said he didn’t trust forecasters.

            what part of agent’s post are you reading to come to that conclusion? here’s the one i’m looking at:

            “…a 50% chance a storm would move in. That means nothing more than there was a 50% chance they would be wrong”

            you also wrote “Can someone not simply say “I disagree with this forecast” without you implying they don’t understand science?”

            OF COURSE! if agent said “i don’t trust the forecast” or “weathermen aren’t always accurate with their estimates” we’d be fine.

            but where did he simply say anything that? he didn’t, did he?

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “100% chance that their forecast will turn out like they have for several years now. Wrong!
            Reply

            May 27, 2016 at 4:17 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 9

            Forecast – verb – predict or estimate

            Forecast – noun – a prediction or estimate of future events

            If they’re right 80% of the time, you’ll look at the 20% and call them failures without understanding what an estimate is!

            Estimate – verb – roughly calculate…the value, number, quantity, or extent

            Estimate – noun – an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something.

            I know well enough what I’m talking about. The above started this tirade.

            When he says 100% chance he is mocking statistics and forecasting in general. This is where he said forecasters are not always correct. But apparently he can’t say that, because he was over exaggerating you need to swoop in and insult his intelligence don’t you?

            You sure showed him the definition of Forecast!

            Come off it Confused.

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            He went outside of your line of acceptability, didn’t he?

            This is exactly why the most important thing this election is stopping the pc movement.

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:29 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Like for example:

            If I said why do you liberals always use this argument?

            In a heated argument you might understand what the meaning is, or the intended one, and you might say the same when talking about republicans. Why do you always do this?

            Generally, we understand how someone talks and move around what we know is the concept. We then weigh if it’s worth the argument.

            So you considered that Agent’s over exaggeration needed to be corrected….Why? You didn’t already know it was exaggeration stating he doesn’t trust forecasters? Did you really think you would change that opinion? Did the definition of Forecast matter? Do you believe that Agent didn’t know that definition?

            These questions all point to why it was so completely stupid to have the reply you did and start this whole tirade.

    • June 3, 2016 at 3:48 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Yogi, the President made an economic speech the other day touting the economy. Today, it was revealed that the country had the weakest job creation in 5 years with a very poor 38,000 jobs created and another 500,000 left the workforce after giving up looking for work. The worst stat put out by the Labor Dept is the unemployment rate which went from 5.0% to 4.7%. None of the give ups are counted on unemployment or it might be 15-20% unemployed. Guess we will need another recovery summer. 94 Million of adults are now not in the work force. Kind of hard for the Democrats to tax them further, don’t you think? This is what Progressive Socialism does to a country. Need an example? Take a look at what Venezuela has been doing. Can’t wait until November to kick these bums out.

      • June 3, 2016 at 4:13 pm
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        COME ON – post context too!! i’m NOT saying the economy under Obama is great and i’m NOT saying we’re better off now than decades ago.

        what i AM saying is you post these cherry picked numbers without putting them into the proper context simply so they suit your narrative.

        you’re intentionally misleading people and that’s deceitful.

        BLS points to retirements among the aging baby boom generation as a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate.

        Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.3 percent), adult women (4.2 percent), Whites (4.1 percent), and Hispanics (5.6 percent) declined….

        Health care added 46,000 jobs in May…over the year, health care employment has increased by 487,000.

        • June 3, 2016 at 4:22 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Figures don’t lie, but liar’s figure. Go onto Townhall.com and read it and weep. Progressive Socialism is causing the big downturn and everyone but you know it. I don’t think we ever exited the Great Recession, it only improved slightly. Now the country is in full recession again thanks to Progressive Democrat leadership and the worst President in the nation’s history. Now you are free to vote for Bernie who will continue the slide while raising tax rates on working people.

          • June 3, 2016 at 4:26 pm
            confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            wait, so now figures don’t lie? what happened to “there are 3 types of lies, one of which is statistics?” do you not believe that anymore?

            let me repeat: i’m NOT saying the economy under Obama is great and i’m NOT saying we’re better off now than decades ago. what i AM saying is you post these cherry picked numbers without putting them into the proper context simply so they suit your narrative.

            sarcastic thank you for not responding to any of the actual reasons for the change in employment I posted. i think there’s a 100% chance you will either ignore this reply or make another insult laden post instead of discussing the data behind the numbers and what it actually means

      • June 7, 2016 at 2:22 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        “very poor 38,000 jobs created”

        Or in other words, almost double the average month under George Bush, even if you exclude the losses at the start of the Obama presidency from his numbers, which there is no logical reason for doing.

        You never answered my question I asked you multiple times, Agent. Since you have recently been obsessed with whining about less than 3% GDP growth under Obama, even though US growth has outpaced most other industrialized nations, and world growth is largely intertwined now, why do you dodge my question?

        Since you care about 3% GDP growth so much, are you willing to commit to voting Democratic since the average GDP growth for all Republican presidents is less than 3%, at about 2.7%?

    • June 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Yogi, how about some HUMOR to end the week with? The humorless left will not like it, but you might.

      Did you know what Bill Clinton says to Hillary after sex? “I’ll be home in 20 minutes”.

      • June 3, 2016 at 5:54 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        That was brutal. I don’t know if I can get over the initial shock.

        I think you’re sexist agent.

        :-)

      • June 7, 2016 at 2:24 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        that is funny. Since you are so concerned about morals, Agent, as well as the sex lives of others, write a joke about that time Trump raped his ex-wife, Agent.

        • June 7, 2016 at 12:45 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Oy ve. Get your head out of your ass kid.

  • June 3, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 2

    Let me repeat, Obama’s economy is terrible and getting worse. Is that context enough for you?

    Allow me to quote a very great man.

    “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”. Winston Churchill

    How about another?

    “The inherit vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent blessing of Socialism is the equal sharing of misery”. Winston Churchill

    Need more?

  • June 7, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Hey Trump supporters, defend this:

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/florida-ag-asked-trump-donation-075016133.html

    For those who do not like to click links:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Florida’s attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates

    The new disclosure from Attorney General Pam Bondi’s spokesman to The Associated Press on Monday provides additional details around the unusual circumstances of Trump’s $25,000 donation to Bondi.

    The money came from a Trump family foundation in apparent violation of rules surrounding political activities by charities. A political group backing Bondi’s re-election, called And Justice for All, reported receiving the check Sept. 17, 2013 — four days after Bondi’s office publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University’s activities, according to a 2013 report in the Orlando Sentinel.

    After the check came in, Bondi’s office nixed suing Trump, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.

    Bondi declined repeated requests for an interview on Monday, referring all questions to Marc Reichelderfer, a political consultant who worked for her re-election effort.

    Reichelderfer told AP that Bondi spoke with Trump “several weeks” before her office publicly announced it was deliberating whether to join a lawsuit proposed by New York’s Democratic attorney general. Reichelfelder said that Bondi was unaware of the many consumer complaints received by her office about Trump’s real-estate seminars at the time she requested the donation.

    “The process took at least several weeks, from the time they spoke to the time they received the contribution,” Reichelderfer told AP.

    The timing of the donation by Trump is notable because the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said he expects and receives favors from politicians to whom he gives money.

    “When I want something I get it,” Trump said at an Iowa rally in January. “When I call, they kiss my ass. It’s true.”

    In addition to the money given by his foundation, Trump himself has donated $253,500 in Florida since 1999, most of it going to Republican candidates, the state party or political committees affiliated with GOP officials. His daughter, Ivanka Trump, also gave a $500 check to Bondi a week before her father’s money came in, as well as another $25,000 to the Republican Party of Florida the following year.

    The AP reviewed thousands of pages of records related to consumer complaints about Trump University and its affiliates filed with Bondi’s office. The documents — previously obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, which first reported Trump’s donation to Bondi — reveal a new reservoir of unhappy Trump University customers, despite recent claims from the presumptive GOP presidential nominee that the students of his real estate seminar company were overwhelmingly satisfied.

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and a separate federal class action civil lawsuit in California allege that Trump University — which was largely owned by Trump himself — defrauded consumers by as much as $35,000 each with promises of a real estate investing education that they either did not receive or found to be worthless.

    All told, more than 20 people requested help from the Florida attorney general’s office in obtaining refunds from Trump University and affiliates, with Bondi’s predecessor receiving numerous other complaints about the seminar company Trump partnered with. Many of the Trump-related consumers alleged that they paid money for training materials and personalized instruction which were never delivered.

    “I was laid off work for the first time in my life and really need this money to support my family,” wrote one of the many people seeking help, adding that he had been promised a refund but never received it. “$1,400 is so much money for my family.”

    The documents complicate prior claims by Bondi’s office that she received only one consumer complaint about Trump University at the time that she decided not to join the New York investigation.

    Bondi’s office said that its statement about receiving only a single complaint was accurate at the time because most of the complaints dealt with the Trump Institute, a separate corporate entity from Trump University, and were made before she took office at the start of 2011. The Trump Institute was licensed by Trump to run his seminars, however, with Trump keeping a share of the profits, according to depositions in the Trump University case. In internal emails, Bondi’s own staff appeared to lump Trump University and the Trump Institute together — as New York’s lawsuit has done.

    Bondi was not the only GOP attorney general to shy away from suing Trump.

    The Associated Press first reported last week that then-Texas Attorney Greg Abbott received $35,000 from Trump, three years after his office in 2010 dropped a proposed lawsuit over Trump U. Following AP’s report, former Texas Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens said the case had been dropped for political reasons. He also made public a detailed internal summary of what he called his staff’s strong case against Trump.

    A spokesman for Abbott, now the Texas governor, said the case was dropped after Trump’s organization agreed to stop offering his namesake real-estate seminars in the state. Within months, Trump University was out of business nationwide.

    By choosing not to pursue Trump in court, the GOP attorneys general left the unhappy students in their states on their own to try to get refunds from the celebrity businessman.

    Both Bondi and Abbott have now endorsed Trump for president.

    • June 8, 2016 at 1:04 am
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Ron, this won’t matter, because the Clintons killed Vince Foster, and Benghaaaaaaaazi!!!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*