The opioid epidemic is exacerbated by the open borders policy of Obama and other liberal Socialist/ Communist Democrats.
It is buttressed by the Sanctuary city policies of liberal cities in CA, NY, IL, CT, MN, MA, VT, etc.
TrumPresident will demonstrate this correlation by MAGA through swift and decisive enforcement of immigration laws that were ignored by Obama and Bush. Once the borders are closed, the opioid epidemic will subside to more manageable levels, which will still require ongoing effort by federal law enforcement and local police. But their job will be made easier by closing the open border to free flow of drugs, and shutting down sanctuaries for drug lords within large US cities.
MAGA & MASA; Make America Great Again and Make America Safe Again!
Good comment DePolar. This society has become drug infested from every source possible. All one has to do is watch the endless drug commercials on TV every night. Big Pharma has a very effective lobby in DC. Perhaps the country will see a big improvement in the economy and people will not find it so necessary to hit the pill bottle so much. Under the Obama Administration, people were so depressed about their lives, they resorted to drugging themselves into a stupor every day of their lives.
TrumPresident has already brought up the issue of accelerating the approval of new drugs, as part of the plan to replace ACA. With that, the hope is the actual manufacturing costs of new drugs, and their development costs, will decrease or not increase as fast as was projected. The thinkers involved are reviewing Canadian drug introduction procedures to see if some can be adopted by the ADA.
Apparently, they want to borrow ideas from Pierre to help pay for drugs for Paul!
According to data and reality opioid prescriptions and deaths exploded starting under Bush and then increased much slower under Obama. So, obviously, you now believe people became super miserable under Bush, right?
They got prescriptions, which exploded, and when they couldn’t get those anymore but were addicted they turned to heroin, which shows up in the recent increase in those overdoses and abuses.
This shows roughly an increase of 154% per year during the Bush administration, and 20% through 2014 under Obama.
West Virginia had almost 800 million of these pain pills sent in by drug companies over 6 years. How is that going to be fixed with cheaper drugs? How is that the fault of Mexicans?
Your first well thought out comment in some time. I must have really forced you to finally show your work.
I will note one thing here though: In your obsession to criticize Bush W, you compared the percentage increases to each other. At some point after an explosion you should expect increases to stop. The percentage being 154% vs 20% delta doesn’t mean as much as the number staying high and still increasing. In other words if it exploded and is still increasing instead of going down, the new person is even worse than the last no matter what. Those numbers are still higher than Bush W and at catastrophic levels whether or not they are still exploding at high rates of increase, they are still insanely increased levels that are still going up. Your obsession to focus on Bush is a serious flaw.
However, I will give you credit for commenting on this in that it clearly is not part of the illegal immigration issue.
I will also give you credit for not insulting Agent. Bravo.
Well Bob, in your obsession to be taken as a serious thinker you forgot to actually think. If wn imbecile like Agent claims this is happening specifically because of Obama it would make sense to see what happened under Obama, and what happened before he took over. You may not know this based on how every time you talk about Republicans you conveniently skip 2 Republican presidents and go back 35 years to Reagan, but Bush was the president before Obama.
The number staying high but slowing down significantly is important, there is no reason to think they would have automatically slowed when they did. There may, and probably are other reasons, but you don’t offer any. In fact you assume a mathematical certainty where none exists. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
“the new person is even worse than the last no matter what.”
No,idiot. Population growth, people being addicted longer and health declined leading to more deaths, different quality drugs, and increased availability are all possible reasons. Saying the higher is automatically worse and not accounting for the rate of change is idiotic. As it is Bush-era policies created a massive addiction and overdose problem that increased at a huge rate until he left and the rate of change significantly decteased. In fact, the change appears to potentially be within a range where it is now steady, has stopped growing and in jusy variance.
By your idiotic standard unemployment was very high when Bush left, and much, much lower now, so Obama is automatically better. You agree, right?
December 29, 2016 at 7:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Well Bob, in your obsession to be taken as a serious thinker you forgot to actually think.”
Shut the hell up. I am a serious thinker, I don’t have an obsession with being taken as such.
“If wn imbecile like Agent claims this is happening specifically because of Obama it would make sense to see what happened under Obama, and what happened before he took over.”
This would be a fair point, except for the following: Your comparison either vindicated Obama on the basis of poor performance, or criticized Bush W, but it failed to disprove that either is causing the issue. Agent may very well be wrong, but you took the wrong avenue of debate for measurement, and further to the point, you didn’t connect the dots. Some of your post proved points, but you didn’t prove either’s affect by linking policy or plan. Just because Agent didn’t either, doesn’t by default mean you did. You can’t tell me that Agent put up a point so you had to argue foolishly.
“You may not know this based on how every time you talk about Republicans you conveniently skip 2 Republican presidents and go back 35 years to Reagan, but Bush was the president before Obama.”
I’m very well aware of this, and it’s not related to anything. I also do not skip 2 republican presidents. I have criticized Bush HW, and as for Bush W I have explained why I consider him on the line of Average to good.
“The number staying high but slowing down significantly is important, there is no reason to think they would have automatically slowed when they did.”
After an explosion by over 5,000 deaths to top 10,000? There is every reason to expect it to be temporary. I’m sorry, no. And if that explosion keeps on going at 10,000 and then continues 20% increases, the new president has not fixed the problem, and then people like you say “at least the percentage increase is low now”. On an continued epidemic? No. Also, get your ego in check. I called you right on other areas and you are still throwing in extreme insults and cliche lines because you cannot handle being told on one item that you did poorly. This means you actually did good on the WHOLE THING except on minor point. Can you not accept that as a compliment? Instead, you go insane….Fuck you dude. Get your head on straight.
“There may, and probably are other reasons, but you don’t offer any. In fact you assume a mathematical certainty where none exists. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.”
You didn’t offer any or explain. It’s not on me to say why a sustained epidemic shouldn’t be sustained and increase after an explosion unless something is wrong. It’s on you to prove your guy has nothing to do with it and has tried to fix it though. I do not by extension assume thee is a mathematical certainty where none exist, I realize it is IRRELEVANT. Go watch Sherlock Holmes BBC with Benedict Cumberbatch. At one point in the series he says something akin to “I don’t care if they all go around the garden like a Teddy Bear, I only care about the relevant information”. And that is your flaw. You’re focused on the cliche. I’m not.
“the new person is even worse than the last no matter what.”
“No,idiot. Population growth,”
Which exceeded 20%? on an already doubling? Population growth does not explain sustained a doubling of deaths being increased and sustaining.
“people being addicted longer and health declined leading to more deaths,”
As I said before, Irrelevant.
“different quality drugs, and increased availability are all possible reasons.”
The why here doesn’t matter, it matters that epidemic conditions are still in affect, and Obama has clearly not stopped the deaths, it’s on you to prove how he did, not why people are actually still in trouble. The why they are doing it doesn’t matter when we talk that they still are.
“Saying the higher is automatically worse and not accounting for the rate of change is idiotic.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No. It’s not. To say that an increase at a slower rate is the emphasis and not offer why is idiotic. See what I did there? You didn’t give the why, something I criticized you for. In your case the why is relevant, because you are trying to say Obama has made it slow down, whereas when we have 10,000 deaths sustained, that is not evidence of a slow down. An epidemic tends to cede, not still increase, and maintain it’s old numbers of deaths. Comparing the delta is not important as pointing out the spike is still increasing and maintaining each year. Now then, back on the main issue here then: You didn’t prove this had anything to do with either Obama or Bush W. You compared a delta, something I told you was stupid as hell. And now you’re telling me suddenly the way matters, in terms of the people doing drugs. That doesn’t! The way matters in terms of what the presidents did however, that could effect it.
“As it is Bush-era policies created a massive addiction and overdose problem that increased at a huge rate until he left and the rate of change significantly decteased. In fact, the change appears to potentially be within a range where it is now steady, has stopped growing and in jusy variance.”
That is a statement of fact without evidence. On both elements, you have not proven that on the first point, and in the second it has not stopped growing, you have precluded the possibility that the epidemic has reached a maximum peak based on the population itself. What I mean is: Access. Maybe the key form of access among these presidents maintained the same factor, and then the amount of people who could access it have finally come close to peaking, but 20% and maintained peak, is not a sign of the epedemic slowing. See the point? You are comparing the numbers without comparing how. The how matters.
“By your idiotic standard unemployment was very high when Bush left, and much, much lower now, so Obama is automatically better. You agree, right?”
This is an ignorant assessment and a false comparison.
I already said the delta is not what to compare, and YES. Is my answer, though you worded it wrong.
If a president shot up deficits temporarily, for example, one year, I would call that the anomaly. I would not then compare the last year’s deficit as a percentage to EACH of Obama’s as a percentage of INCREASE to that ONE high year. I’ve actually hit on this before as to why Obama’s sustained deficits are bad, and we shouldn’t weigh each year as a percentage increase to Bush’s last. It made a mass acceptance of higher deficits that did not need to happen. I have been consistent on this.
Your unemployment number would actually be THE SAME thing I just had a problem with. Deltas between two numbers without comparing normalcy.
So a true example would be:
The unemployment rate during a boom should fall slower than the unemployment rate following a recession.
In other words: Bush W’s lowest unemployment rate should in fact be weighed on that fact, and our unemployment increase numbers should have then thereafter been HIGH. But if Bush W were in a up economy, I would have vindicated nearly all of Obama’s slow growth if it was weighed on a percentage. So let’s say instead Bush W had a 5% unemployment rate. And then Obama only got it down to 4%. First, I don’t weigh those numbers like that as is, only idiots like you do.
Second: As long as a percentage of the population the amount of people stayed the same, or increased, in the LPR adjusted for age and population in comparison to Baby boomers and college kids, or grade kids, I would be fine with it. Do you see what I did there? With Obama Baby boomers and college and grade kids are NOT the reason behind the lower LPR, and the lower LPR IS FOR A FACT what is causing the lower unemployment rate. So what we have is jobs did not keep up with population growth. I don’t compare for example the LPR based on the year to year, on the percentage increase or decrease on it’s own. I compare the whole damn thing, unlike you.
Now that I’ve gone on this huge tangent to explain common sense, just shut up.
December 29, 2016 at 7:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Also I know you will say I contradicted myself here:
There are two forms of why.
You’re saying WHY the people are doing the drugs in terms not linked to Obama or Bush W (and then a statement of fact that Bush W is the reason without proof)
You need to explain the second why and how. This is how it relates to the presidents being talked about and policy.
The why they do it in terms that are not linked to policy don’t matter. Whether they are addicted doesn’t matter. Whether they have access doesn’t matter unless you can show how Obama has restricted that access. If no access has been restricted, we can then assume that it is likely that the number has peaked, and continues to remain epidemic, and that the delta in the percentages of increase are not indicative of a decrease in the issue or that the issue is beginning to be solved.
Correlation does not equate to causation. Remember that from college?
And if you by now do not realize I AM A THINKER we have an issue.
We are going to pause here UW:
You’re going to apologize for calling a fake thinker and a pseudo intellectual. Then we will move forward. And you’re going to say I do research and you just disagree. You’re going to admit I do adamant research. These insults styles are not ok. My discussion here is not some facade of fakeness, my points above have merit. I am not going to listen to you continue to degrade the hell out of all my ideals and methods of processing information while calling me autistic. It isn’t ok.
December 29, 2016 at 10:07 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Once the numbers got very high after the Bush years, they cannot increase at very high rates because there are fewer non-addicts left, AND a very high denominator in place to measure the future increases.
In other words, for a limited population, the increases can be monotonic, but at a decreasing rate of increase that yields an asymptotic increase pattern to the maximum value based on the finite population.
December 30, 2016 at 12:15 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“After an explosion by over 5,000 deaths to top 10,000? There is every reason to expect it to be temporary.”
But that doesn’t make it reality. The reality is that many places have been hit very hard by this, and some places have not been hit as hard, so there is a huge amount of room for it to continue to rise, even if just the less saturated areas increase a little. But, that doesn’t fit your predetermined conclusion, so you didn’t think of it.
” the new president has not fixed the problem, ”
I didn’t say he did, but the problem has significantly slowed down since he took over, which is EXACTLY OPPOSITE what Agent said, and I am sure what you would have agreed with if I hadn’t commented.
Also, STAY OUT OF MY CONVERSATIONS whaaaaaaa, whaaaaaa! Idiot.
“No. It’s not. To say that an increase at a slower rate is the emphasis and not offer why is idiotic.”
No, you fucking imbecile. Maybe in the imaginary debate you were having it would be. But, I was simply replying to Prince Retard Agent (you are King Retard now) and his moronic statement that addiction had increased by so much because people were miserable under Obama. If that were so, you illiterate fuck, the rate would have increased. DEBATE PROPER WHHAAAAAAAA! WHAAAAA! You, moron, started debating something else, NOT what was being discussed.
See what I did there?”
Yes, again went crazy pretending to be smart, because I didn’t want to engage a moron who thinks free range chickens lead to salmonella with data.
“Population growth does not explain sustained a doubling of deaths being increased and sustaining.”
1. Genius, this is incomprehensible, and technically, isn’t even English. 2. Moron, there is no “doubling” under Obama. It went from about 16K/yr to about 19k/yr. JUST THE MATH. Also, ignorant, POS, I did not claim it was all because of population growth, I simply stated there could be many reasons, including…. You don’t even understand variance, so STFU about this.
“Go watch Sherlock Holmes BBC with Benedict Cumberbatch. ”
No, dolt. I have an actual education, and read actual books and articles, I’m not like you, Agent, and Yogi, getting my information from fictional TV shows.
” I called you right on other areas and you are still throwing in extreme insults and cliche lines because you cannot handle being told on one item that you did poorly”
I didn’t do it poorly, you were debating something else in your head, as all insane people do, and went on a rant. Also, imbecile, “Your first well thought out comment in some time” is an insult, ” I must have really forced you to finally show your work.” Is an insult, as well as the delusions of grandeur all insane people, which you 100% are, suffer from. ” In your obsession to criticize Bush W” Is an insult. And on and on. You are a degenerate ingrate, pretending to be an intelligent, civil person, fuck off.
“It’s on you to prove your guy has nothing to do with it and has tried to fix it though. ”
Obama isn’t “my guy,” accused rapist, I don’t even particularly like him. But, you cannot believe that, because you have decided otherwise. The topic you interjected yourself in, apparently as I mentioned mid debate in your own head, was not what Obama or Bush had done to mitigate it, but that people were miserable under Obama so it had exploded under him. However, some of the policies during his term have helped, such as over $1 billion in new funding specifically to help addicts, doubling the number of allowed patients for many doctors who use certain drugs to treat addicts, about $100 million in funding for certain health centers, expanding access to treatment, removing the ban on federal needle exchanges, and a focus on treatment instead of incarceration including a specific Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan, creating the Recovery Branch (another meddling government bureaucracy) to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and many more things. But, that wasn’t the topic so I didn’t mention it.
“I do not by extension assume thee is a mathematical certainty where none exist”
This is how a dumb person thinks smart people sound.
“You’re focused on the cliche.”
Directly after quoting a show about Sherlock Holmes. Fucking clown, get a little self-awareness and you might realize why everybody here except for 2 people, everybody in school, everybody in high school, and everybody in college disliked you.
“The why here doesn’t matter,”
After whining for 2 paragraphs about the Bob Requirement (TM) to explain why. Moron. Also, wrong.
“The why they are doing it doesn’t matter when we talk that they still are.”
Please translate to English.
“and in the second it has not stopped growing”
I specifically said it could be variance. It was up, lower for two years, and then up. That’s a case for variance you incompetent dolt.
I’m not going into a big statistical analysis in a debate with Agent, he is IMO, actually, literally functionally illiterate based on previous debates where he cannot summarize what people write or what articles say.
Your obsession with trying to defend Agent is weird, and creepy beyond belief.
January 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m going to ask you one simple question UW, and this is the crux of my primary issue with Obama, one of the couple cruxes rather.
And somehow, Obama has turned this into his Horcrux. (Had to throw in an evil Voldemort term to mock democrats perception of republicans here)
Is it good to have higher housing costs during a time period in which we have to print money because capital isn’t available? (That was the purpose of QE).
Is it good to print money and have the government try to prop up a recession in the long run?
What has happened in the past when nations did this? (See Germany crises).
And if it is not good to have high housing costs in any circumstance (and I think we will agree) WHY DID OBAMA PROP HOUSING COSTS UP AND WHY IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED THE SINGLE HANDIDLY WORST ACTION ANY PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS???
He himself said that was what it was for, economists agreed, and for many years the housing price index was being weighed to show the economy was improving.
Do you deny these things happened? Do you for some twisted reason believe high housing costs are good? Do you think it was honest for economists and media at large to focus on that number to fraudulently show the economy was improving during many years in which we have 1% GDP growth and stagnant incomes? Don’t worry, you may not have a job, or income increases, and the GDP is growing slow, but at least housing prices are up to where you cannot afford them! No wait…
You want to talk about one party and media being a joke? Forget Fox News. The whole liberal media did what I’m talking about here. There were no exceptions.
December 29, 2016 at 6:12 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
From here you could either take my criticism of your Bush W comment and focus on that, and go into full assault mode, or you could focus on where we agree:
Agent’s method of focus on illegal immigrants on issues that have nothing to do with them.
However, it is not ok to then blanket that to all conservatives. There are many conservatives with facts and numbers regarding illegal immigration and crime, and how such people can fly under the radar. Those are legit non bigoted issues.
UW and other liberals will use your ‘flying under the radar’ comment to say you can’t prove illegal immigrants are to blame for the opioid epidemic because they are undocumented and can’t be proven to exist or reside in the U.S. Therefor, U.S. citizens are solely responsible for the opioid crisis.
Then they’ll argue in the same breath for Amnesty for all illegals who have to hide in the shadows.
December 30, 2016 at 10:54 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I ran out of digits on my four paws trying to count all the vulgarities in UW’s post above.
Does anyone have an abacus I can borrow?
December 30, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
What is amazing is he accepts no critique whatsoever.
I just called his numbers right, though one weighed a little off.
I basically said he was right in his concept as well, that illegal immigrants weren’t the driving force behind opioid drug sales.
The only thing I said was that it was illogical to simply compare the delta in the percentage of explosion increase difference after a catastrophic level of explosion. That is also agreeing that it definitely did explode. Clearly there is actually an issue needing to be dealt with, and it does a huge disservice to the issue to try and say which of two presidents is vindicated and which one is not, and then ignore that the current president hasn’t fixed it.
And I don’t care about anything other than this being deeply disturbing.
I don’t believe illegal immigrants have anything to do with it either.
But instead of seeing an ally who wants to solve the problem, and stop saying it is something it isn’t (even to some conservatives) he sees an enemy and goes full on attack mode.
I’m sure you and I disagree on some of the points here, but I would never call you the names and argue like he just did.
I don’t think you and I and agent have ever name called each other.
December 30, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
What is annoying here is this is worse than the liberal perceived gun crises.
Speaking of that, remember a while back when I said that if you compared the police force and armed officers to private citizens you would find that it is more dangerous to allow a police officer to have a gun, and yet most liberals believe the other way that citizens who go through the process to own a gun are more dangerous with guns?
They show the number of armed police officers compared to armed citizens and then compare the rates on shootings.
Very interesting stuff, they also compare crime rates, and they show an FBI study that robberies, rapes, murders, and aggravated assaults in the states with concealed carry laws were consistently lower than ones without.
That’s just a random side area.
December 30, 2016 at 5:10 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
So, not one comment about anything I said, just dismissing it because I didn’t applaud you sufficiently for agreeing with one part of my statement, after numerous insults. Fraudulent loser.
Liar, where did I say the Cook study confirmed that scientists believed climate change to be catastrophic?
” but I would never call you the names and argue like he just did.”
You are deluded. You do this constantly. You have done it this week to me, Ron, Confused and Planet. You need a social worker to come check on you, because the thread you were hanging onto reality with apparently broke. Also, asshole, I stated why I insulted you, because you insulted me, as you do in almost every single post where anybody make any claim contrary to what you believe.
January 3, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So what I’m to believe is:
The lower participating labor force is the economy and population’s fault, not Obama’s. Lower labor participation rates will be normal now (except for when they go up again, and then they go down during another republican presidency somewhere in the next 30 years, then Confused will say that LPR’s being low is bad.)
Death rates from epidemic issues staying the same and continuing to rise is actually a decrease, and that’s how epidemics work, we just have to trust that the deaths are the fault of the addicts. (Except for when it comes to illegal drugs, then it is the fault of the government and over policing and the war on drugs)
Corporations are bad, and we need to tax them in order to help the poor, and this will not raise the cost of goods, but making too much import taxes for companies that sell in the U.S. will raise the cost of goods here, and is impossible (Goods costs only increase when republicans are involved apparently)
Estate taxes have no impact on Capital.
Taxes in general have no impact on Capital.
High housing costs are good so long as a democrat is in office (Watch this change when housing costs increase under Trump to be a matter of the poor being unable to afford houses. As it did during Clinton, and then we will push a government program to give loans to the poor again, the CRA has done this cycle since it’s inception)
And so on so forth.
Good is bad and bad is good, and the D and the R make all the difference.
The opioid epidemic is exacerbated by the open borders policy of Obama and other liberal Socialist/ Communist Democrats.
It is buttressed by the Sanctuary city policies of liberal cities in CA, NY, IL, CT, MN, MA, VT, etc.
TrumPresident will demonstrate this correlation by MAGA through swift and decisive enforcement of immigration laws that were ignored by Obama and Bush. Once the borders are closed, the opioid epidemic will subside to more manageable levels, which will still require ongoing effort by federal law enforcement and local police. But their job will be made easier by closing the open border to free flow of drugs, and shutting down sanctuaries for drug lords within large US cities.
MAGA & MASA; Make America Great Again and Make America Safe Again!
Good comment DePolar. This society has become drug infested from every source possible. All one has to do is watch the endless drug commercials on TV every night. Big Pharma has a very effective lobby in DC. Perhaps the country will see a big improvement in the economy and people will not find it so necessary to hit the pill bottle so much. Under the Obama Administration, people were so depressed about their lives, they resorted to drugging themselves into a stupor every day of their lives.
TrumPresident has already brought up the issue of accelerating the approval of new drugs, as part of the plan to replace ACA. With that, the hope is the actual manufacturing costs of new drugs, and their development costs, will decrease or not increase as fast as was projected. The thinkers involved are reviewing Canadian drug introduction procedures to see if some can be adopted by the ADA.
Apparently, they want to borrow ideas from Pierre to help pay for drugs for Paul!
According to data and reality opioid prescriptions and deaths exploded starting under Bush and then increased much slower under Obama. So, obviously, you now believe people became super miserable under Bush, right?
They got prescriptions, which exploded, and when they couldn’t get those anymore but were addicted they turned to heroin, which shows up in the recent increase in those overdoses and abuses.
This shows roughly an increase of 154% per year during the Bush administration, and 20% through 2014 under Obama.
https://gobigread.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/10/US_timeline._Prescription_opioid_pain_reliever_deaths.jpg
West Virginia had almost 800 million of these pain pills sent in by drug companies over 6 years. How is that going to be fixed with cheaper drugs? How is that the fault of Mexicans?
Your first well thought out comment in some time. I must have really forced you to finally show your work.
I will note one thing here though: In your obsession to criticize Bush W, you compared the percentage increases to each other. At some point after an explosion you should expect increases to stop. The percentage being 154% vs 20% delta doesn’t mean as much as the number staying high and still increasing. In other words if it exploded and is still increasing instead of going down, the new person is even worse than the last no matter what. Those numbers are still higher than Bush W and at catastrophic levels whether or not they are still exploding at high rates of increase, they are still insanely increased levels that are still going up. Your obsession to focus on Bush is a serious flaw.
However, I will give you credit for commenting on this in that it clearly is not part of the illegal immigration issue.
I will also give you credit for not insulting Agent. Bravo.
Well Bob, in your obsession to be taken as a serious thinker you forgot to actually think. If wn imbecile like Agent claims this is happening specifically because of Obama it would make sense to see what happened under Obama, and what happened before he took over. You may not know this based on how every time you talk about Republicans you conveniently skip 2 Republican presidents and go back 35 years to Reagan, but Bush was the president before Obama.
The number staying high but slowing down significantly is important, there is no reason to think they would have automatically slowed when they did. There may, and probably are other reasons, but you don’t offer any. In fact you assume a mathematical certainty where none exists. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
“the new person is even worse than the last no matter what.”
No,idiot. Population growth, people being addicted longer and health declined leading to more deaths, different quality drugs, and increased availability are all possible reasons. Saying the higher is automatically worse and not accounting for the rate of change is idiotic. As it is Bush-era policies created a massive addiction and overdose problem that increased at a huge rate until he left and the rate of change significantly decteased. In fact, the change appears to potentially be within a range where it is now steady, has stopped growing and in jusy variance.
By your idiotic standard unemployment was very high when Bush left, and much, much lower now, so Obama is automatically better. You agree, right?
“Well Bob, in your obsession to be taken as a serious thinker you forgot to actually think.”
Shut the hell up. I am a serious thinker, I don’t have an obsession with being taken as such.
“If wn imbecile like Agent claims this is happening specifically because of Obama it would make sense to see what happened under Obama, and what happened before he took over.”
This would be a fair point, except for the following: Your comparison either vindicated Obama on the basis of poor performance, or criticized Bush W, but it failed to disprove that either is causing the issue. Agent may very well be wrong, but you took the wrong avenue of debate for measurement, and further to the point, you didn’t connect the dots. Some of your post proved points, but you didn’t prove either’s affect by linking policy or plan. Just because Agent didn’t either, doesn’t by default mean you did. You can’t tell me that Agent put up a point so you had to argue foolishly.
“You may not know this based on how every time you talk about Republicans you conveniently skip 2 Republican presidents and go back 35 years to Reagan, but Bush was the president before Obama.”
I’m very well aware of this, and it’s not related to anything. I also do not skip 2 republican presidents. I have criticized Bush HW, and as for Bush W I have explained why I consider him on the line of Average to good.
“The number staying high but slowing down significantly is important, there is no reason to think they would have automatically slowed when they did.”
After an explosion by over 5,000 deaths to top 10,000? There is every reason to expect it to be temporary. I’m sorry, no. And if that explosion keeps on going at 10,000 and then continues 20% increases, the new president has not fixed the problem, and then people like you say “at least the percentage increase is low now”. On an continued epidemic? No. Also, get your ego in check. I called you right on other areas and you are still throwing in extreme insults and cliche lines because you cannot handle being told on one item that you did poorly. This means you actually did good on the WHOLE THING except on minor point. Can you not accept that as a compliment? Instead, you go insane….Fuck you dude. Get your head on straight.
“There may, and probably are other reasons, but you don’t offer any. In fact you assume a mathematical certainty where none exists. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit.”
You didn’t offer any or explain. It’s not on me to say why a sustained epidemic shouldn’t be sustained and increase after an explosion unless something is wrong. It’s on you to prove your guy has nothing to do with it and has tried to fix it though. I do not by extension assume thee is a mathematical certainty where none exist, I realize it is IRRELEVANT. Go watch Sherlock Holmes BBC with Benedict Cumberbatch. At one point in the series he says something akin to “I don’t care if they all go around the garden like a Teddy Bear, I only care about the relevant information”. And that is your flaw. You’re focused on the cliche. I’m not.
“the new person is even worse than the last no matter what.”
“No,idiot. Population growth,”
Which exceeded 20%? on an already doubling? Population growth does not explain sustained a doubling of deaths being increased and sustaining.
“people being addicted longer and health declined leading to more deaths,”
As I said before, Irrelevant.
“different quality drugs, and increased availability are all possible reasons.”
The why here doesn’t matter, it matters that epidemic conditions are still in affect, and Obama has clearly not stopped the deaths, it’s on you to prove how he did, not why people are actually still in trouble. The why they are doing it doesn’t matter when we talk that they still are.
“Saying the higher is automatically worse and not accounting for the rate of change is idiotic.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No. It’s not. To say that an increase at a slower rate is the emphasis and not offer why is idiotic. See what I did there? You didn’t give the why, something I criticized you for. In your case the why is relevant, because you are trying to say Obama has made it slow down, whereas when we have 10,000 deaths sustained, that is not evidence of a slow down. An epidemic tends to cede, not still increase, and maintain it’s old numbers of deaths. Comparing the delta is not important as pointing out the spike is still increasing and maintaining each year. Now then, back on the main issue here then: You didn’t prove this had anything to do with either Obama or Bush W. You compared a delta, something I told you was stupid as hell. And now you’re telling me suddenly the way matters, in terms of the people doing drugs. That doesn’t! The way matters in terms of what the presidents did however, that could effect it.
“As it is Bush-era policies created a massive addiction and overdose problem that increased at a huge rate until he left and the rate of change significantly decteased. In fact, the change appears to potentially be within a range where it is now steady, has stopped growing and in jusy variance.”
That is a statement of fact without evidence. On both elements, you have not proven that on the first point, and in the second it has not stopped growing, you have precluded the possibility that the epidemic has reached a maximum peak based on the population itself. What I mean is: Access. Maybe the key form of access among these presidents maintained the same factor, and then the amount of people who could access it have finally come close to peaking, but 20% and maintained peak, is not a sign of the epedemic slowing. See the point? You are comparing the numbers without comparing how. The how matters.
“By your idiotic standard unemployment was very high when Bush left, and much, much lower now, so Obama is automatically better. You agree, right?”
This is an ignorant assessment and a false comparison.
I already said the delta is not what to compare, and YES. Is my answer, though you worded it wrong.
If a president shot up deficits temporarily, for example, one year, I would call that the anomaly. I would not then compare the last year’s deficit as a percentage to EACH of Obama’s as a percentage of INCREASE to that ONE high year. I’ve actually hit on this before as to why Obama’s sustained deficits are bad, and we shouldn’t weigh each year as a percentage increase to Bush’s last. It made a mass acceptance of higher deficits that did not need to happen. I have been consistent on this.
Your unemployment number would actually be THE SAME thing I just had a problem with. Deltas between two numbers without comparing normalcy.
So a true example would be:
The unemployment rate during a boom should fall slower than the unemployment rate following a recession.
In other words: Bush W’s lowest unemployment rate should in fact be weighed on that fact, and our unemployment increase numbers should have then thereafter been HIGH. But if Bush W were in a up economy, I would have vindicated nearly all of Obama’s slow growth if it was weighed on a percentage. So let’s say instead Bush W had a 5% unemployment rate. And then Obama only got it down to 4%. First, I don’t weigh those numbers like that as is, only idiots like you do.
Second: As long as a percentage of the population the amount of people stayed the same, or increased, in the LPR adjusted for age and population in comparison to Baby boomers and college kids, or grade kids, I would be fine with it. Do you see what I did there? With Obama Baby boomers and college and grade kids are NOT the reason behind the lower LPR, and the lower LPR IS FOR A FACT what is causing the lower unemployment rate. So what we have is jobs did not keep up with population growth. I don’t compare for example the LPR based on the year to year, on the percentage increase or decrease on it’s own. I compare the whole damn thing, unlike you.
Now that I’ve gone on this huge tangent to explain common sense, just shut up.
Also I know you will say I contradicted myself here:
There are two forms of why.
You’re saying WHY the people are doing the drugs in terms not linked to Obama or Bush W (and then a statement of fact that Bush W is the reason without proof)
You need to explain the second why and how. This is how it relates to the presidents being talked about and policy.
The why they do it in terms that are not linked to policy don’t matter. Whether they are addicted doesn’t matter. Whether they have access doesn’t matter unless you can show how Obama has restricted that access. If no access has been restricted, we can then assume that it is likely that the number has peaked, and continues to remain epidemic, and that the delta in the percentages of increase are not indicative of a decrease in the issue or that the issue is beginning to be solved.
Correlation does not equate to causation. Remember that from college?
And if you by now do not realize I AM A THINKER we have an issue.
We are going to pause here UW:
You’re going to apologize for calling a fake thinker and a pseudo intellectual. Then we will move forward. And you’re going to say I do research and you just disagree. You’re going to admit I do adamant research. These insults styles are not ok. My discussion here is not some facade of fakeness, my points above have merit. I am not going to listen to you continue to degrade the hell out of all my ideals and methods of processing information while calling me autistic. It isn’t ok.
Once the numbers got very high after the Bush years, they cannot increase at very high rates because there are fewer non-addicts left, AND a very high denominator in place to measure the future increases.
In other words, for a limited population, the increases can be monotonic, but at a decreasing rate of increase that yields an asymptotic increase pattern to the maximum value based on the finite population.
“After an explosion by over 5,000 deaths to top 10,000? There is every reason to expect it to be temporary.”
But that doesn’t make it reality. The reality is that many places have been hit very hard by this, and some places have not been hit as hard, so there is a huge amount of room for it to continue to rise, even if just the less saturated areas increase a little. But, that doesn’t fit your predetermined conclusion, so you didn’t think of it.
” the new president has not fixed the problem, ”
I didn’t say he did, but the problem has significantly slowed down since he took over, which is EXACTLY OPPOSITE what Agent said, and I am sure what you would have agreed with if I hadn’t commented.
Also, STAY OUT OF MY CONVERSATIONS whaaaaaaa, whaaaaaa! Idiot.
“No. It’s not. To say that an increase at a slower rate is the emphasis and not offer why is idiotic.”
No, you fucking imbecile. Maybe in the imaginary debate you were having it would be. But, I was simply replying to Prince Retard Agent (you are King Retard now) and his moronic statement that addiction had increased by so much because people were miserable under Obama. If that were so, you illiterate fuck, the rate would have increased. DEBATE PROPER WHHAAAAAAAA! WHAAAAA! You, moron, started debating something else, NOT what was being discussed.
See what I did there?”
Yes, again went crazy pretending to be smart, because I didn’t want to engage a moron who thinks free range chickens lead to salmonella with data.
“Population growth does not explain sustained a doubling of deaths being increased and sustaining.”
1. Genius, this is incomprehensible, and technically, isn’t even English. 2. Moron, there is no “doubling” under Obama. It went from about 16K/yr to about 19k/yr. JUST THE MATH. Also, ignorant, POS, I did not claim it was all because of population growth, I simply stated there could be many reasons, including…. You don’t even understand variance, so STFU about this.
“Go watch Sherlock Holmes BBC with Benedict Cumberbatch. ”
No, dolt. I have an actual education, and read actual books and articles, I’m not like you, Agent, and Yogi, getting my information from fictional TV shows.
” I called you right on other areas and you are still throwing in extreme insults and cliche lines because you cannot handle being told on one item that you did poorly”
I didn’t do it poorly, you were debating something else in your head, as all insane people do, and went on a rant. Also, imbecile, “Your first well thought out comment in some time” is an insult, ” I must have really forced you to finally show your work.” Is an insult, as well as the delusions of grandeur all insane people, which you 100% are, suffer from. ” In your obsession to criticize Bush W” Is an insult. And on and on. You are a degenerate ingrate, pretending to be an intelligent, civil person, fuck off.
“It’s on you to prove your guy has nothing to do with it and has tried to fix it though. ”
Obama isn’t “my guy,” accused rapist, I don’t even particularly like him. But, you cannot believe that, because you have decided otherwise. The topic you interjected yourself in, apparently as I mentioned mid debate in your own head, was not what Obama or Bush had done to mitigate it, but that people were miserable under Obama so it had exploded under him. However, some of the policies during his term have helped, such as over $1 billion in new funding specifically to help addicts, doubling the number of allowed patients for many doctors who use certain drugs to treat addicts, about $100 million in funding for certain health centers, expanding access to treatment, removing the ban on federal needle exchanges, and a focus on treatment instead of incarceration including a specific Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan, creating the Recovery Branch (another meddling government bureaucracy) to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and many more things. But, that wasn’t the topic so I didn’t mention it.
“I do not by extension assume thee is a mathematical certainty where none exist”
This is how a dumb person thinks smart people sound.
“You’re focused on the cliche.”
Directly after quoting a show about Sherlock Holmes. Fucking clown, get a little self-awareness and you might realize why everybody here except for 2 people, everybody in school, everybody in high school, and everybody in college disliked you.
“The why here doesn’t matter,”
After whining for 2 paragraphs about the Bob Requirement (TM) to explain why. Moron. Also, wrong.
“The why they are doing it doesn’t matter when we talk that they still are.”
Please translate to English.
“and in the second it has not stopped growing”
I specifically said it could be variance. It was up, lower for two years, and then up. That’s a case for variance you incompetent dolt.
I’m not going into a big statistical analysis in a debate with Agent, he is IMO, actually, literally functionally illiterate based on previous debates where he cannot summarize what people write or what articles say.
Your obsession with trying to defend Agent is weird, and creepy beyond belief.
I’m going to ask you one simple question UW, and this is the crux of my primary issue with Obama, one of the couple cruxes rather.
And somehow, Obama has turned this into his Horcrux. (Had to throw in an evil Voldemort term to mock democrats perception of republicans here)
Is it good to have higher housing costs during a time period in which we have to print money because capital isn’t available? (That was the purpose of QE).
Is it good to print money and have the government try to prop up a recession in the long run?
What has happened in the past when nations did this? (See Germany crises).
And if it is not good to have high housing costs in any circumstance (and I think we will agree) WHY DID OBAMA PROP HOUSING COSTS UP AND WHY IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED THE SINGLE HANDIDLY WORST ACTION ANY PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS???
He himself said that was what it was for, economists agreed, and for many years the housing price index was being weighed to show the economy was improving.
Do you deny these things happened? Do you for some twisted reason believe high housing costs are good? Do you think it was honest for economists and media at large to focus on that number to fraudulently show the economy was improving during many years in which we have 1% GDP growth and stagnant incomes? Don’t worry, you may not have a job, or income increases, and the GDP is growing slow, but at least housing prices are up to where you cannot afford them! No wait…
You want to talk about one party and media being a joke? Forget Fox News. The whole liberal media did what I’m talking about here. There were no exceptions.
From here you could either take my criticism of your Bush W comment and focus on that, and go into full assault mode, or you could focus on where we agree:
Agent’s method of focus on illegal immigrants on issues that have nothing to do with them.
However, it is not ok to then blanket that to all conservatives. There are many conservatives with facts and numbers regarding illegal immigration and crime, and how such people can fly under the radar. Those are legit non bigoted issues.
UW and other liberals will use your ‘flying under the radar’ comment to say you can’t prove illegal immigrants are to blame for the opioid epidemic because they are undocumented and can’t be proven to exist or reside in the U.S. Therefor, U.S. citizens are solely responsible for the opioid crisis.
Then they’ll argue in the same breath for Amnesty for all illegals who have to hide in the shadows.
I ran out of digits on my four paws trying to count all the vulgarities in UW’s post above.
Does anyone have an abacus I can borrow?
What is amazing is he accepts no critique whatsoever.
I just called his numbers right, though one weighed a little off.
I basically said he was right in his concept as well, that illegal immigrants weren’t the driving force behind opioid drug sales.
The only thing I said was that it was illogical to simply compare the delta in the percentage of explosion increase difference after a catastrophic level of explosion. That is also agreeing that it definitely did explode. Clearly there is actually an issue needing to be dealt with, and it does a huge disservice to the issue to try and say which of two presidents is vindicated and which one is not, and then ignore that the current president hasn’t fixed it.
Obama clearly hasn’t fixed this. UW can’t possibly argue he has.
And I don’t care about anything other than this being deeply disturbing.
I don’t believe illegal immigrants have anything to do with it either.
But instead of seeing an ally who wants to solve the problem, and stop saying it is something it isn’t (even to some conservatives) he sees an enemy and goes full on attack mode.
I’m sure you and I disagree on some of the points here, but I would never call you the names and argue like he just did.
I don’t think you and I and agent have ever name called each other.
What is annoying here is this is worse than the liberal perceived gun crises.
Speaking of that, remember a while back when I said that if you compared the police force and armed officers to private citizens you would find that it is more dangerous to allow a police officer to have a gun, and yet most liberals believe the other way that citizens who go through the process to own a gun are more dangerous with guns?
http://americangunfacts.com/
They show the number of armed police officers compared to armed citizens and then compare the rates on shootings.
Very interesting stuff, they also compare crime rates, and they show an FBI study that robberies, rapes, murders, and aggravated assaults in the states with concealed carry laws were consistently lower than ones without.
That’s just a random side area.
So, not one comment about anything I said, just dismissing it because I didn’t applaud you sufficiently for agreeing with one part of my statement, after numerous insults. Fraudulent loser.
Liar, where did I say the Cook study confirmed that scientists believed climate change to be catastrophic?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/02/410761.htm/?comments
” but I would never call you the names and argue like he just did.”
You are deluded. You do this constantly. You have done it this week to me, Ron, Confused and Planet. You need a social worker to come check on you, because the thread you were hanging onto reality with apparently broke. Also, asshole, I stated why I insulted you, because you insulted me, as you do in almost every single post where anybody make any claim contrary to what you believe.
So what I’m to believe is:
The lower participating labor force is the economy and population’s fault, not Obama’s. Lower labor participation rates will be normal now (except for when they go up again, and then they go down during another republican presidency somewhere in the next 30 years, then Confused will say that LPR’s being low is bad.)
Death rates from epidemic issues staying the same and continuing to rise is actually a decrease, and that’s how epidemics work, we just have to trust that the deaths are the fault of the addicts. (Except for when it comes to illegal drugs, then it is the fault of the government and over policing and the war on drugs)
Corporations are bad, and we need to tax them in order to help the poor, and this will not raise the cost of goods, but making too much import taxes for companies that sell in the U.S. will raise the cost of goods here, and is impossible (Goods costs only increase when republicans are involved apparently)
Estate taxes have no impact on Capital.
Taxes in general have no impact on Capital.
High housing costs are good so long as a democrat is in office (Watch this change when housing costs increase under Trump to be a matter of the poor being unable to afford houses. As it did during Clinton, and then we will push a government program to give loans to the poor again, the CRA has done this cycle since it’s inception)
And so on so forth.
Good is bad and bad is good, and the D and the R make all the difference.