They know it will destroy them to get rid of it, they are cowards, and are already discussing putting it off until after the 2020 election. They were already pretty much committed to putting it off until after the midterms, which is I guess “day one” for Drumpf. Real profiles in courage.
Repeal will happen within 48 hours of TrumPresident taking the oath of office.
Replacement will take place in phases, starting with legislation on a federal and state level to allow sales of HI across state lines.
Tort reform will take place over a year or two, state by state, to reduce or limit punitive damage awards, and implement other measures to lower costs of malpractice insurance, which ultimately is passed onto patients.
Other aspects of the replacemetn plan will take varying amounts of time. Example: health savings account tax credits will be debated in FULL Congressional sessions after committees refine the details… this takes a few months at least, for each step.
You are just repeating LIES being pushed by FAKE NEWS outlets such as Huff & Puff POSt, CNN, MSLSD, NBC, C-BS, and ABC.
They are cowards if they don’t repeal it, and they are evil pompous belligerent wind bags who always jam through unpopular things if and when they do AMIRITE?
Are you really stupid enough to think those things are mutually exclusive? Your deranged rants at Confused and UW see almost as weird as your defense of Agent.
I hear now that FOUR replacement plans were submitted by Republicans and that Dems are aware of ALL FOUR.
That is a BIG difference from 8 years ago when ACA was hidden until the vote was taken by Nancy Pelosi Galore.
The holdup is going to be resolved by discussion of the aspects of the four proposals being combined into one proposal by deciding which aspects will work and can be pushed through various STATE legislatures, as well as the US Congress.
Stay tuned! It’s going to be revealed piecemeal for the next few weeks or months as the four proposals are reviewed by ‘the adults in the room’ i.e. Congress. And, it will not be decided by those sore losers who have now claimed “They’re Gonna Make America Sick, Again!”.
Are you aware of Tom Price’s? First they said the republicans didn’t address risk averse issues, then when Price’s made a penalty if you went without insurance which would go away after 2 years (dealing with people who just buy into the market when they need it)
They said it would slam people with prexisting conditions with higher premiums if they didn’t go with insurance.
With the ACA it’s ok if we hit those people for the greater good to contain costs, and with the Price plan, it’s because Price hates the poor and people with pre-existing conditions.
And when the ACA fined people it was for the greater good, but when Price sets up a similar program to deal with risk averse issues, well, it’s because he’s evil.
And this is neglecting to mention that many liberals that vote, including a certain liberal here *UW* *cough cough* say the mandate is the only way of dealing with risk averse issues and the republican plans don’t.
So there is an entire section of the population who believes republican plans don’t deal with averse issues, because they haven’t looked into the plans and pretend they did.
I can say there is a novel way to deal with the risk averse issue. It has to do with the policy form, and residual market pools being revised or resurrected.
I can’t say the Republicans are including it in their final plan proposal.
The risk averse issue was addressed by one person’s proposal by a compromise in regard to the subsidy issue. I can’t reveal more now because it would take a while to sketch the plan out.
No, I didn’t read Price’s proposal. I’ll get to it this week. Thanks for the 411 on it.
Dems are lying about the 4 proposals already, despite having access to their texts. ALL of the Dems who are doing so SHOULD BE CALLED OUT FOR LYING. Which Republican has the spine to call a colleague Dem a liar? I’ll watch to see.
There are things I could add, but I’ve got to get away from my PC for a few hours.
“Allows individuals to opt out of Medicare, Medicaid
, TRICARE, and VA benefits and receive tax
credit to purchase personal health plan instead.”
Ryan for example has tried to push it all to credits, this guy is trying to take a moderate approach of allowing for your choice on the matter. That has pros and cons of it’s own.
I like the credit basis increasing with age, older people would need credits more.
Also:
“Increases access to individual health coverage by a
llowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one
state to offer them to residents of any other state
.
Allows consumers to shop for health insurance acros
s state lines, just like other insurance products –
online, by mail, by phone, or in consultation with
an insurance agent. ”
A good thing we have all talked about.
But those are the limit of my praise for the bill.
January 4, 2017 at 7:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
And here I am quoting bills and referencing what I like about them again.
I don’t see the liberals here doing that. And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.
January 5, 2017 at 7:55 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.”
Wrong. I said AGENT’s posts aren’t based in reality. I did not direct that comment at you what-so-ever.
January 5, 2017 at 8:21 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
To wit: “As I mentioned to bob, Agent sometimes says things that aren’t based in reality.”
You even quoted that exact sentence in one of your replies.
January 5, 2017 at 12:50 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Hey pompous windbag, and now an insult is due to you, yes you did
Let’s see if I can go find it.
““And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.”
Wrong. I said AGENT’s posts aren’t based in reality. I did not direct that comment at you what-so-ever.”
January 5, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
bob – thanks for your reply. I will sincerely apologize if you can find ANY comment of mine where I said some of your posts aren’t based in reality.
However….
If you can’t find such a post, and as I already provided evidence to support my argument, will you apologize to me for claiming I said something about you that I never actually said?
January 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“bob – thanks for your reply. I will sincerely apologize if you can find ANY comment of mine where I said some of your posts aren’t based in reality.
However….
If you can’t find such a post, and as I already provided evidence to support my argument, will you apologize to me for claiming I said something about you that I never actually said?”
Not a chance, due exactly to how you phrased this, otherwise I may have.
I know what your goal is with this. I’m not stupid, like a millennial and Ron you make traps like this all the time instead of being direct.
If you wanted an apology just ask for it. Also, I am not referring to solely that comment, which I will admit being wrong on, but again, I won’t apologize due to this comment.
January 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I take that back, I will apologize, if you plainly explain to me what you were doing with that phrasing, (which we both know) and then apologize for it.
Then I will apologize for being wrong on this one.
January 5, 2017 at 3:53 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“I take that back, I will apologize, if you plainly explain to me what you were doing with that phrasing”
It wasn’t a trap and I’m not playing games. Take what I wrote at face value. You claim I said your posts aren’t based in reality. I vehemently denied your accusation. I demanded you provide proof of what you claim I said. I demanded an apology if you can’t provide evidence where I said such a thing.
But I know there is no proof because I never said it to you! I said it TO you, but not ABOUT you. Big difference.
Can you find ANY comment of mine where I said your posts aren’t based in reality? No, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
So you need to apologize for accusing me of saying something that you can’t back up because I never actually said it.
January 5, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also Confused:
I have to preemptively point you out when I make facts. It’s not a choice. I have to.
Unless you make a point of showing that the other people who are putting out facts are over stating their facts, people will use false equivalency. Your ideals are what I’m out to disprove, you’re just caught in the crossfire.
I’ve seen too many kids mislead by these types of comments, that care more about moral high ground than facts.
What were you trying to do with that phrase? I’ll repeat my question. What was I?
I was trying to defeat what I perceived was an attempt to say conservatives myself included, are not based in reality.
What you were doing, was preemptively trying to defend yourself and show that we just make comments that aren’t right and won’t apologize for it, so we are totally unwilling to admit we are wrong. If we apologize we damage our credibility, if we don’t we damage our credibility. It was an assault without an intention of fixing process. My attempt was to fix process and help people, you cared only about you.
January 5, 2017 at 3:59 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“It wasn’t a trap and I’m not playing games. Take what I wrote at face value. You claim I said your posts aren’t based in reality. I vehemently denied your accusation. I demanded you provide proof of what you claim I said. I demanded an apology if you can’t provide evidence where I said such a thing.”
Yes. It was. You aren’t owed an apology when someone is wrong about your attacks that you constantly do on the right. An alteration, maybe, an apology, no. You worded it the way you did for coercion.
“But I know there is no proof because I never said it to you! I said it TO you, but not ABOUT you. Big difference.”
You actually said it to Planet, but that’s neither here nor there. Keep your posts shorter.
“Can you find ANY comment of mine where I said your posts aren’t based in reality? No, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.”
You have not made any implications that my research is not rooted in reality? You haven’t discredited conservatives and said they aren’t fact oriented? I call BS. There’s a reason I’ve been kicking your teeth in here.
“So you need to apologize for accusing me of saying something that you can’t back up because I never actually said it.”
No. I don’t. You need to stop attacking conservatives and calling them low information folks and focusing on the stupidest of phrases. Whether it’s me or someone else.
January 5, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
After debating with you on climate change and other issues I’m beginning to see it’s not worth my time.
You declare yourself better than Agent all the time, and recently in your own post you said you didn’t know the numbers, just the conclusion and who should you believe and how if you have to actually digest numbers yourself.
I actually had to explain: No one. You should believe no one, especially when the claim is radical. Not until you can break the numbers down more, and until you can, it’s insanity to blame any one person for not listening to the “facts” on climate change.
You’re not different than Agent. Have you noticed I don’t often debate back and forth with agent other than to say I agree or disagree? Why don’t you just take that route?
Or recently I flatly called him wrong about the immigration crises being linked to opioid sales, and that’s only because I could actually prove it. When I did so I didn’t tell him his beliefs were not based on reality and conservatives were low information. I simply told him it does a disservice to actual conservatism. I even gave UW a bravo, before he had to fight about it.
I’m really tire of how people regard conservatism here, you included in that.
January 5, 2017 at 4:32 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m getting pretty tired too.
You lie about what I say and “knowing” my intent while ignoring what I actually say (this conversation); you make up arguments that have no bearing on our debate (like citing Arctic historical weather reports in a discussion about Texas temperatures); you demand I post replies to you and then literally say you are refusing to read it (last conversation); you attack, demean and insult me even though I consistently show you respect by not responding in kind (this conversation); and yet you hypocritically call out people when they insult you.
You are a disingenuous hypocritical lying troll — at best.
January 5, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Oh I’m sorry Confused, could you simply not handle that I said you think my opinions are not rooted in reality?
Above I told you that you focus on the wrong things, and you do. I put a huge three post aspect about healthcare, and inserted ONE line about you.
Now, whether or not I was right on that line you are focusing on instead of actual issues.
You’re a child. A millennial who cares about phrasing more than concept. A fool.
You tell me why we had to go into this much on a conversation because of one line, you have failed at life if you think this was merited. In which, I said, you’re right, I was wrong about the ONE LINE but I also said you do in fact attack others here based on that very same concept (and you do).
I’m sick of you kid. Get lost.
Did my one line send you off the edge and you had to correct it? Poor baby!
January 5, 2017 at 5:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
It’s just toooo much to handle isn’t it confused?
I’m just such a bad guy for that one line, a hypocritical troll!
Here’s my rule in life:
Punch me once, I punch back twice as hard. Try again, and I’ll sweep your legs out from under your feet, and I’ll slam your face when you’re down this time.
Now here’s what most people miss:
Before that punch back twice as hard, I basically do this: I correct you and give a chance. You don’t take it, you get the consequence. The second time, after I slam you on the ground, before I launch my fist while you’re down, I give another chance, don’t take it, I’ll finish you off.
That is ergo why I said in the middle of my post that it appears that one post was not referring to me, that was my chance, and then I posed my fist over your face saying essentially “You have used this to attack others. This fist is justice for that. Back down or take the fist”. But because you don’t back down, you then get the fist.
If you were actually doing the same, there would be no issue between us. Instead, you squirm like a cowardly worm, refusing to back off your whiny crap. You will have me on your rear as long as you’re on Agent’s. I don’t tolerate this type of behavior.
I’m sorry, did he quote that one politician wrong? Ah da aw!!! Did it hurt your feelers?
Did it hurt your feelers one of my lines was wrong, and now I’m a troll?
Did it hurt your feelers so much you can’t focus on healthcare, and it’s my fault? Wight widdle baby?
January 6, 2017 at 8:10 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Do you even lift, bro?
January 6, 2017 at 9:16 am
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
This is a fully insane nut. This is the part of that most people miss: Insane nut.
January 7, 2017 at 4:58 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Don’t bother with this imbecile anymore, Actu. He doesn’t know how to look at his data. Even resizing the chart to look at the years he is talking about shows a massive increase in military spending, which is even larger in real terms.
The insane person says: “it’s amazing that Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession.”
But looking at the data shows this to be false. Since 1950 the deficit in nominal dollars averaged $61.4 billion/yr; during the Bush years it averaged $250.7 billion/yr. Much, much worse.
In real, 2009 dollars, the average deficit from ’50 to Bush averaged about $122 billion, under Bush it averaged over $270 billion. The only year Bush was lower than the average was the first year when he inherited a surplus from Clinton, after that every single year was over the average. To a normal thinking person that means the deficit was than normal years; to Bush that means only one year was “better” than “normal”. Both stupid terms.
Also, this idiot claims, “Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession.” Bush’s ‘one year with worse than normal deficits’ has to be his highest deficit year, which was in real terms 2004, and which there was also no recession. He is incompetent in every regard. He can say he was using nominal dollars, in which case he was right the highest year was during a recession, but as I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, with data, that means every single Bush year was significantly worse than the average deficit and he is still wrong.
He is lying out his ass about the Cook study, and he knows it. He is a piece of shit. He can’t ever provide a quote proving what he has alleged for weeks. He is a flat-out liar, and he can’t admit he was wrong, because he is a pathological liar. He is now arguing something completely different. I recommend you don’t engage with him either, he is damaged, and spiraling right now. Even using his defense figures he is too stupid to adjust the axis to get a better view, or to look at the numbers. Just an insane dolt.
January 8, 2017 at 10:14 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Owned, but those numbers won’t count because they don’t support the story he blabs nonstop.
How much do you want to bet he disappears now?
January 10, 2017 at 12:26 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
That was more for you if you pursue it, ACTU. I am done with this moronic disgrace to humanity, he is too disturbed, a pathological liar, and has severe, severe mental problems.
January 6, 2017 at 9:23 am
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
The ACA was not hidden, it was debated in various committees for over a year. Conservatives mostly chose to try to block it instead of participating. Being ignorant doesn’t make something not exist.
Coo1! Now those who voted for Trump will find out what it means to vote against your own self interest when pre-existing conditions and black lung benefits are no longer covered.
And America will finally see the health care plan the GOP always said it had.
I have never been to concerned about pre existing condition exclusions but then again I have always been fortunate to be able to decide to work for an employer that provides coverage and health care portability protection took care of the issue. So for me at least my self interest has been protected.
Had this not been the case I can understand how others would be concerned, my primary problem with ACA from the beginning was mandatory coverage for all or be penalized for choosing to not be covered. Some how that just goes against what I see as a free country but just one man’s opinion.
Automobile Insurance is mandatory in order to operate a motor vehicle
Do you not have a problem with that?
Using seatbelts in Automobiles is mandatory in most if not all states. Do you have a problem with that?
I don’t operate a motor vehicle. My paws are too big and so they press two pedals at once. Humans can do like I do; i.e. walk,… if they don’t want to buy mandatory LIABILITY insurance.
Apparently, you don’t grasp of the key reason for mandatory LIABILITY insurance for injuring OTHERS… VERSUS optional first party health insurance for YOUR ailments…
Bad argument MS PARIS – If I choose not to drive then I don’t have to have auto insurance; I still have the choice. Not so with ACA. Using the logic of the ACA, I would have to have auto insurance even if I NEVER drive. Regardless of what I do I have to have health insurance or I will be punished by the government. BIG difference. I actually know quite a few people who do not drive and to date none of them have auto insurance. Next time try using and apples-to-apples comparison.
Idiotic analogy; you can’t opt-out of needing health care, or everybody would do it.
Jax is wrong too, the costs of uninsured are passed to others if people don’t have health insurance unless we change the law forcing hospitals to provide care even when people can’t pay.
December 30, 2016 at 10:06 am
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
The mandatory part of Automobile insurance is ‘primarily’ for the protection of others, not one’s self. Forcing people to buy health insurance is much like the seat belt law – government meddling in the personal affairs of it’s citizens.
Yes, I have a problem with that. Now, sit up straight and don’t slouch.
Ms Paris
Automobile liability insurance is mandatory in most states at limits that are in most cases way too low. That said I have no issue with that as I choose to drive a car and for that choice I accept that I have to have liability coverage.
As to seatbelt laws I do have an issue with that, mind you I did say laws and not usage. I do not see anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights that the Government at the Federal, State or Local level has the right or responsibility to protect a competent adult from their own choices.
It is all about personal responsibility and choice which used to be important in our society, that is until the liberal nanny state came along.
How do you know that pre-existing conditions and black lung will not be covered? Give a Trump a chance instead of spouting factless data and statements.
You can keep your policy.
The cause of the uprising in Benghazi was a video on Youtube.
You can keep your doctor.
Premiums will decrease by an average of $2500.
etc.
What evidence do you have refuting the CIA in this since they said the same thing? Millions in wasted dollars of Republican witch hunts turned up nothing else, aside from a Republican giving up classified information about the weapons depot nearby.
December 29, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
Simply go to the first post on this topic which spouted factless data and statements.
DePolarBearables says:
It’s gonna be cut down by PresidenTrump faster than a decaying cherry tree. The repeal bill will be short enough so we can ALL READ IT BEFORE the Republican controlled Congress passes it.
Example: This Act does immediately and irrevocably repeal and nullify the Affordable Care Act. etc.
Nothing more than 2 or 3 pages are needed to clearly define the bill and misc. provisions that will be repealed, and the treatment of policies in force.
It’s quite lovely that you fact check Agent’s odd comments that don’t matter, but how about you fact check planet and liberals here for once eh?
They are making some fairly bold claims and are trying to convert people based on them.
Those people are the bigger threat. Not some guy you believe isn’t quoting politicians correctly.
In what world is it more important to make sure people source quote correctly, over correct people who source quote to spread misinformation? I’m genuinely curious in which world you perceive the person who talks wrong someone you need to watch out for, and not the person misleading public at large in ways that can cause substantial policy differences in voting?
This is your millennial being an issue. You care more about PC topics than you do anything else. Work on it. Agent doesn’t have this weakness, and is clearly from possibly just younger to just older than the baby boomer generation. That age doesn’t engage in this bullcrap, and it’s a good thing.
Agent’s speech is a GOOD THING. What you’re doing isn’t.
I provided you the oceanic data by the way, and you didn’t reply. Go back to the site and check. The measurements have been different and the NOAA even admits that and says they try to compensate for it to reconcile different types of data into one chart. They are refusing to simply make a chart for each type. For example like the 2003 method I mentioned, and this is likely because when you use just that one, that one, as my source shows, displays dramatically less oceanic warming since 2003 than the government. Looking at the chart the the government seems to be projecting about a double as much change.
Why don’t you focus on better shaping arguments from people that are pretending they know oceanic data, yourself included?
December 30, 2016 at 2:23 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
It’s not MORE important, but posting lies and masquerading it as truth isn’t okay either.
Agent attacks me when I haven’t posted anything and blatantly lies about what I’ve said — I respond NOT by insulting him, but by calling out his bull#&@ when I see it.
UW/Planet/Ron – those guys have never done anything like that to me. They show me respect. They admit to their errors when I have pointed them out. They comprehend nuanced arguments.
And you may not believe it, but I call them out too. Not as much as Agent, I admit that, but that’s because Agent tries to pigeon-hole me into his little box and must be told the same thing dozens of times before he finally stops lying about it (for two examples: that I said ACA is a super-duper failure and I never cast a single vote for Obama)
And yeah, I saw your link in the other thread. The Breibart/RCS link you first sent me to prove NOAA’s readings may not be reliable was solely referencing Texas readings. The link you posted is the historical Arctic report – not historical Texas results.
How temperatures are recorded in, on and above the ocean and the factors used to “reconcile” the oceanic data is completely different from how temperatures are recorded and “reconciled” over land.
If your historical NOAA link discussed terrestrial readings and not aquatic ones, it would be relevant to the discussion that stemmed from your Breibart/RCS link that solely talked about adjusted terrestrial readings for Texas. It did not and I already brought this discrepancy to your attention.
December 30, 2016 at 4:37 pm
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I regret that I haven’t done enough to be called out by confused.
Where have I gone wrong?
December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
White Knight Bob riding in to try to save Agent again & caring more about somebody checking his bullshit than about Agent’s lying. Fucking weird.
January 2, 2017 at 8:24 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
actu-lieber; please refrain from repeating your prior vulgarities. We’ve read them all before, hundreds of times.
January 3, 2017 at 5:15 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“actu says:
White Knight Bob riding in to try to save Agent again & caring more about somebody checking his bull@%@# than about Agent’s lying. @%@ing weird.”
It’s weird that you care more about fact attacking agent based on whether or not he used a line to quote a politician, than you do caring about Agent.
Also, no one here is checking my BS. You haven’t given any data. What you mean to say is, that someone is trying to contradict my data, and to date, he himself said he could not extrapolate his own data when I asked him a question regarding it. He didn’t know whether the data showed the right temps or not, because he hadn’t digested it. Confused is not digesting data, he is repeating the conclusions of other agencies, and I might add, HALF the scientific community does not agree that catastrophic climate change is man made, or will be man made.
So when you say that people have to be stupid if they disagree with data on the issue, you’re being wildly disingenuous about the science, and then you attach a label to people who don’t listen to is and create attacks.
I stop those attacks, because as I said above, what is more important, that Agent says every aspect of what he believes, or Confused, who pretends he gave that information and gives a misleading conclusion, gets his own information in order?
I don’t think he needs to monitor what Agent says about small comments. There are bigger fish to fry.
As for confused, I’m not reading the response.
Too many of you have been insane. I’m going to make my point and that is all.
I’m not going to be in constant berating conversations over things like this. I did what I was meant to, morally, and now I’m finished. I made my point before, and that’s finished.
Knock it off ACTU.
January 3, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“I might add, HALF the scientific community does not agree that catastrophic climate change is man made, or will be man made.”
I have to actually tie this together because I know how you will hit on this. I’m talking about oceanic temperatures right now, and above i mentioned that the government would be wrong, overestimating by about double if they used the 2003 measuring method. Then I said this, which is about climate change, a different issue.
The reason I mentioned this, is because we actually have polls regarding it, whereas we do not on oceanic temperatures. Not to nearly the same degree, but, the polls there show that the government is being wildly disingenuous to anyone that denies their over inflated numbers. This is becoming a method of attack and discrediting and grouping people, which again, is not surprising considering the democrat party was for a fact for slavery, and segregation more than the republican. Watch me while I say this is the evolution of class warfare they have tried to perfect over time. They do not care about minorities, they care about groups they can create and turn against each other.
January 3, 2017 at 5:20 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So go tell that to the half of the scientific community that agree with, and use the numbers I am using. Instead of calling science people science deniers.
The sources I have quoted are all scientists themselves, even the ones with blogs, with the exception of one. And that one I even said myself was poor in the data but his concept seemed to be supported by others.
You can’t call me on B.S. that half the major science community agrees with.
Yes, I’m turning your own argument on it’s head. UW tells me I can’t call his stuff garbage because he claims 97% of scientists agree with it (though I showed it is 47% that agree man made warming can be catastrophic) so I can say that half of scientists agreeing with me shows that I’m not full of it.
It shows I disagree with the data, and I’ve digested that data and methods of measurement. You and UW have not.
January 4, 2017 at 9:08 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
bob wrote “I provided you [Confused] the oceanic data by the way, and you didn’t reply. Go back to the site and check.”
So I went back. I checked it. And then I replied here.
But now you say “As for confused, I’m not reading the response…I’m going to make my point and that is all.”
Sooooo, you tell me to reply to your link and when I do, your next comment is “I’m not reading the reply.”
How about don’t tell me to review reply to something it if you’re not going to bother reading the reply when I do so?
It’s like if I asked Agent to source something and when he posted his reply, I said “nope. i’m not going to read it.”
I doubt you’d let me “get away” with doing something as disingenuous as that, which is what you just pulled here.
January 4, 2017 at 8:36 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Lying Bob changing his quotes again. I asked for a citation where I said the Cook paper addressed catastrophe. You obviously looked back and realized I didn’t say that, so now you change your story again and summarize me incorrectly and dishonestly again. Provide a citation where I said Cook et al addressed beliefs in catastrophe or admit you were wrong.
I’ve provided the link for you about a dozen times now.
January 4, 2017 at 8:41 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Here’s the link. Quote, admit you were wrong or I’m done debating you.
I got to the point of your post that said “lying bob” then ceased reading.
For all you think that Trump is not presidential, you certainly try to mimic his speech a lot, don’t you?
I’m not replying to your stupidity. Keep trying. I’m not reading it either.
There are no lies in my posts, and we aren’t talking while you keep saying as such.
You disagree, and you’re going to phrase it as such.
I have now compared Oceanic temperature weighing methods, and shown there are several, and none yet account for the ocean itself having a moving current, very few measure at the same depth, or keep track of varying depths in any consistent measure to see if those factors are the reason for variance, more importantly, many scientists have spoken on the margin of error when they merge all data, and found it is high enough in any direction on each of the methods of measure, that there could be some, huge amounts (as it only takes a few degrees to become a huge issue) or even none, in terms of warming. The very reason I took the debate with confused was that he was claiming darn near a 10 degrees Fahrenheit temperature switch as an average. That is completely insane.
You didn’t even know there was one done from 2003 to current, did you? And I source quoted the method.
Then when people show it, you discredit the scientist, say they are in the minority (so was Albert Einstein) and say anyone who doesn’t accept your science is a flat earther. Sound about right kiddo? That’s not how science and dissenting opinions work.
I have also digested and I’m the only person here who has done as such, the CRA laws compared to bank charters, and I’m sorry, I’m right regarding it.
I went over the convictions in colleges, guess what? You were wrong about the concept and you posted so quickly without thinking you were wrong that I had the wrong terminology. Because I’m not arrogant, I BELIEVED YOU at first. That’s what you don’t get. I even said something akin to “even if I used the wrong word it doesn’t matter”. And then you proceeded to tear me apart saying I don’t even know high school level crap, and words matter blah blah. That’s why I came back tearing you apart saying if you had looked it up, you would have known that, but you didn’t, and I was going to make sure you never lived it down.
There was the Iraq war spending you said wasn’t counted in the deficit. It was. It was under another name. I clearly said as such and you plainly said no, it’s not there, period. Then you said I misinterpreted you. No. I didn’t.
You are NOT researching properly, and this is more than just being slightly wrong, this is partisan behavior believing whatever the heck supports your narrative. These are only a few issues, and simply asking a few questions reveals how much of an idiot you are.
January 5, 2017 at 3:24 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I don’t see a quote from me in there saying what you claim I said. I see you debating yourself, but no proof. Shut up , lying degenerate, or admit your were wrong.
It is insanely easy since I have provided the link a dozen times.
I’ll prove you wrong on the CRA again if you ever approach sanity but until you do and provide a quote or admission of error it is only what you deserve.
January 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
UW:
We have had several arguments on this, and you then finally called me a liar, when I said that my issue is that less than half of scientists believe that man made global warming is a major threat, but what I mean by this is that they are the driving factor. I should word this better so I will admit fault for that.
I told you, why would I even argue if that wasn’t what I was arguing about?
I then referenced your cook study, which does back up that less than half of scientists believe global warming is a a major threat.
I am not lying, this did occur, and cook et al does reference this.
Also, in this post you are looking into you quoted the Guardian among others, this is not where you linked the Cook et al study, which you have done in the past and it would take far too much effort to find. I provided a link already showing that Cook et al itself has buried within the evidence contradicting your conclusion of 97%, and it is going to take me a long time to find it again, for the same reasons as the NOAA. Everyone that presents it goes to the conclusion and a simple chart, they don’t present the data and source it, the Guardian certainly didn’t. I just tried to use that to find it, and it doesn’t have it. It doesn’t matter if I reference a blog, if that blog references scientific data. Discredit the data, not the source. You say all the time that you don’t discredit sources, prove it. Mention the data that was wrong.
On that note, this is one of many links I used showing less than half of climatologists agree with you.
“Allow me to show the work since you won’t. Your link clearly narrowed who was considered a scientist, and did not mention what that number was, or what qualified as a climate scientist.” – Lying, pseudo-intellectual Bob trying to debunk the consensus found in the Cook et al paper.
“In UW’s source he tried to chain that over 90% of the people agreed with how they were represented but this is easily proven wrong.” – Lying Bob about the Cook et al paper, mis-summarizing my position, as always since he is fundamentally dishonest.
THEN, you lying, illiterate, pos, you ranted and asked about the level of catastrophe.
I did not, but, you continue to claim I did. Provide the quote or admit I did not claim the Cook paper said, as you have incorrectly been claiming for weeks.
You can’t, because I didn’t argue that, but you are too insane and disturbed to admit it.
Where
Is
The
Quote
Idiot?
January 5, 2017 at 8:26 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You’ll never get a quote or get Bob to admit he was wrong. Look through his other threads: he is demanding sources and then freaking when people demand the same, he is blaming people when the data he cites doesn’t exist, he is misquoting people, he is arguing with himself saying things like “I know you will say” and then creating a fiction to cry about, he is cursing and insulting and then whining about language. He has completely lost it. He needs a psychological evaluation.
January 6, 2017 at 9:28 am
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
>In what world is it more important to make sure people source quote correctly, over correct people who source quote to spread misinformation?
Bona fide moron. Maybe that’s just my millenial being an issue.
January 6, 2017 at 9:44 am
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
>I have to actually tie this together because I know how you will hit on this. I’m talking about oceanic temperatures right now,
No you aren’t, liar. Your hot destroyed by Planet and UW on this and updated your training point to say it’s about the level of catastrophe and are clearly referring to the entire planet not just the ocean. Stop being a nut and apologize in the implosion above.
December 29, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
The drafts of alternatives for republicans has included pre-existing conditions as well as preventative care.
Get educated. I’ve posted these plans several times, and since then Ron has changed from there are no plans, to it wouldn’t cover pre existing conditions, to, if it covers pre existing conditions like the ACA without a mandate it therefore must increase in cost.
Do you guys ever long term track your statements or others who give you evidence? Do I really have to source quote these bills again?
Trump has already said he’s not getting rid of prexisting conditions, and that isn’t where the cost issue is with Obama’s bill.
In fact, if I’m not mistaken he smugly said he is looking forward to watching the republicans be wrong and costs go up when republicans include the high cost measures.
I don’t recall him saying that when the ACA was passed.
Didn’t you see the comments in the recent article about Black Lung? It’s bad, but largely due to smoking. They will NEVER realize they have voted against their own self-interests, they will just blame blacks, Mexicans, liberals, etc.
Now those who voted for HilLIARy will find out what it means to put in an honest 8 to earn a wage, rather than sit in front of a TV and collect welfare checks and food stamps.
America will finally see EVERYONE who is ABLE TO WORK back at work, pulling a much smaller wagon of truly disabled people.
pre-existing conditions, black lung and other adverse selection issues are why it has been such a failure. Who in their right mind thinks that offering affordable care to the very sickest, most uninsurable was going to work ??
No one, that’s who.
You need to remember you’re talking with liberals here. When I read this the first thing I get out of it is you don’t want to help the poor with such conditions. But you have to realize, they do have assistance. The poorest anyway, and I believe they do need and deserve help. A liberal would read your post, not know this (due to being low information voters) and get this out of it “I don’t want those darn poor people getting free coverage!” (which is what Ron, Actu, and UW get out of it, especially Ron)
But in regards to that: In the states where poor people cannot afford insurance, they will get coverage for these very same pre existing conditions. It just won’t be insurance coverage.
The only scenario I could see someone not getting coverage for this with state assistance would be if they are not low income, did not buy the proper insurance, and also made poor spending decisions which lead to them not being able to afford insurance.
While I do feel sorry for such people, it would be wildly disingenuous to imply that the poorest families cannot get coverage or state assistance. They most certainly can. The majority of cases in which someone cannot get some sort of care is extremely limited for one (As there are laws you have to be provided care for life threatening illnesses, you will get a bill and go bankrupt, but you will get care and there are very few loopholes for this), and for two, is not from people in the poorest sections of society.
We should focus on how best to help people as conservatives and force these guys to give up the moral high ground. Ron uses it on you two all the time.
This is what happens when people think like you. That you need to attack stupidity, with vulgarities and mocking etc.
This is what happens when you say that a major politician or belief system is racist and bigoted.
People fight on that basis instead of facts. And that’s how you fight, you are no different. You have called me autistic, and I know if we were in an area debating and you knew no one would find out? You would inflict bodily harm on me. I don’t think it, I know it. In fact, I’m very confident you would be ok with my death, and believe it is needed for the greater good, with people who think like me. Ergo why you said I should be careful, because some people might think I’m so extreme I need to die.
You sound like an ISIS terrorist, you repeat mantras and phrases about the aggressors who need to be stopped.
If you are a moderate, explain to me what conservative ideals you agree with, or programs?
I listed three recently. Go ahead. Do it. Show me where you agree with republicans. I don’t mean this ethics garbage recently. I mean a program.
I know you can’t. Because you are bat sh@%@ crazy. I’m not partisan kid, you’re insane.
January 5, 2017 at 3:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
If you didn’t catch:
That means you are ok with hurting autistic stupid people.
That’s why I said it the way I did. They deserve it don’t they? They are Timothy McVeigh. I’m either stupid, or I’m Timothy Mcveigh, I can’t be both.
If I don’t know anything and can’t think right, I am not a psychopath, which they are known for being rather smart, it’s a bit of the cause of their downfall. See the point?
January 6, 2017 at 9:32 am
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Once again Bob arguing with what he thinks liberals would say instead of what they are saying.
Now a conservative would see this and think we need to exterminate certain religions, because they are low information, but I disagree.
January 6, 2017 at 3:45 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You are a despicable, sub-human, piece of trash Bob. This has little to nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with me. They were degenerate, gang members, and they were friends looking for notoriety. Fuck you.
You still haven’t provided the quote of me saying the Cook paper addressed catastrophe after saying for weeks you proved me wrong in that, and here you say I can’t debate with facts. Pseudo-intellectual clown, kiddo. You ignore every study posted, and as mentioned with your pathological lying about the Cook paper and debate consider lying a fact. You ignored facts on minimum wage, climate change, the Cook study, demographics and unemployment, and productivity, and more, every topic in fact. With every one of these you lied about reading the study or said you wouldn’t read it, and then claimed to be all about facts. Don’t even get started on your stupid Bob Math which NEVER adds up, and which you abandoned after being crushed, kiddo. I’ve also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you don’t know basic statistics, therefore, by definition, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to analyze data as you claim to do. Degenerare, perverted, liar.
Fuck you. I’ve never said anything wishing you personal harm, even after you THREATENED ME WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. You constantly create fictions in your head about what other people would do or probably think, and then treat them as facts. I have compared you philosophy to McVeigh because as I showed, your rhetoric is just like his, including your perverted desire for a civil war-more violence from you.
You STILL have not provided a quote about what you incorrectly claimed I said about the Cook study, and your severe mental problems keep you from admitting your were wrong. Garbage both intellectually and morally.
You are a full-blown, insane, pathological lying, piece of shit and I am done with you because you cannot operate in reality, cannot provide a simple quote verifying what you lied and attacked me with, and are too insane to ever admit you are wrong in anything of consequence. I asked if your wete autistic because I suspected you were and was going to lay off certain, severe personality problems you have, but it turns out you are just pure garbage, horrifically unintelligent, and mentally unsound. Fuck off, psycho.
Nobody should reply to you anymore, you are a mentally unstable person in a meltdown.
January 3, 2017 at 6:31 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Agree, Bob.
I’m seeing/ hearing some good ideas lately, including fixing the high risk pools that were once used but were dropped/ stopped by ACA… I’m a little fuzzy on that issue.
There are some clever minds working on SOLVING the problems rather than TAXING people to pay overly-expensive costs. Tort reform ideas have been novel compared to past approaches used back in the day when bed pan mutuals arose.
ACA repeal is an easy 1st step. The replacement isn’t going to be one bill or one step… too many things are intertwined in the health care and health insurance industries to fix with a couple ‘tricks’. But if people see the multiple steps, they’ll gain some comfort with, and confidence in, the people who will soon be in charge.
Agreed. I’m worried even with republican fixes and Trump fixes.
It’s going to take a lot of guesstimates even from the clever to try and bring down costs.
December 29, 2016 at 1:57 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
7
3
Chicken Little…..
The guys not even in office and is having a positive impact on Jobs. One way to make things affordable is to get all able bodied Americans back to full employment.
IBM. Carrier. Ford. Either scrapping moving plans or hiring more AMERICANS. Yea, they get tax breaks so we take less refugees and can the foreign aid to those Mid East countries that hate us.
Stock Market rolling right along.
Relations with Russia can only get better as they cant get mush worse. But then again, Obama is still in office, so maybe they can.
So, all you Chicken Little folks… Stay tunes. Focus on the positive.
FFA, interesting that the IJ is still publishing positive stories about the worst legislation ever passed and on the brink of being repealed and replaced due to its well publicized failures. Kind of tells you where IJ lines up on the Progressive agenda, right?
By the way, how bout them Cowboys? Are those kids good or what? Looks like they and the Patriots are the two best in the league, but upsets can happen in the playoffs.
“Filth” Closes First NYC Chick-Fil-A Outlet
January 4, 2016 News, Religion
Update below. Gothamist reports:
New York City’s first towering Chick-Fil-A has hit a stumbling block in its plans for domination of the city’s fast food fried chicken landscape. A Christmas Eve inspection by the Department of Health uncovered a host of critical violations, resulting in 59 violation points, squarely in C territory. On December 30th, the restaurant closed its doors, indicating it would reopen for breakfast on January 4th.
The five critical violations included food held at improper temperatures and food not cooled by an approved method. Filth flies, food not protected from possible contamination and soiled wiping cloths were also cited. A previously ungraded inspection earlier in the month returned with 39 violation points, indicating things got worse—not better—between the two inspections
@CapTroll Asteroid; please do your orbitting in another galaxy. We’re trying to have polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversations and debates here on IJ.
Yogi,
If you are trying to have a polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversation, you are failing miserably.
January 3, 2017 at 7:27 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Only failing up to this point because of YOU.
January 3, 2017 at 10:14 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Typical Donald Trump supporter, just blame someone else for your own failures.
January 3, 2017 at 3:23 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Review the posts to see who is(are) the one(s) trash talking and spewing vulgarities.
January 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Typical Donald Trump supporter, just blame someone else for your own failures.”
A typical Ron comment.
The typical Trump supporter is a lot more like me, and libertarian in nature. I have seen I am not alone in my thoughts.
You choose some conservatives here to focus on that meet some of your preconceived notions.
Work on it.
January 4, 2017 at 11:02 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
@Ron; WHO is discussing Chick-fil-a when the topic of the article is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act?
The answer to that question will lead you to the reason for my comment above.
IF you can’t stay on topic, or close to it, stay out of the comments section.
January 4, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Chic Fil A is absolutely related to healthcare as it’s making people sick, Yogi. I’m just trying to warn all my friends out here.
January 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Do you want me to point every time you post something not related to the topic?
You would not fair too well if I did.
Besides, there are plenty of off-topic posts in the comments from nearly everybody, including me.
January 4, 2017 at 2:27 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Ron; yes, please point out every instance where I veer from the topic and REPEATEDLY STAY OFF COURSE. I will make a late resolution to fix that problem if you find MULTIPLE OFF TOPIC POSTS IN CONSECUTIVE ORDER.
January 5, 2017 at 9:54 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Patticake
Chic Fil A is absolutely related to healthcare as it’s making people sick, Yogi. I’m just trying to warn all my friends out here.
January 5, 2017 at 3:34 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“The typical Trump supporter is a lot more like me, and libertarian in nature”
Libertarians don’t support and justify the State torturing, even when innocent, discrimination based on religion, exporting based on race, even when they are citizens, attacking protesters, an authoritarian leader with a private security force, tariffs on trade, manipulating currency, outlawing marriage for gay people based on the Bible and what you feel is best, and on and on.
Not wanting to pay taxes doesn’t make you libertarian, idiot. Please shut up, stop posting, or learn the absolute basics about what you talk about.
I don’t see your quote about catastrophe yet, what a shock. Liar or wrong?
January 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Patticake
Yogi,
If you are trying to have a polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversation, you are failing miserably.
January 5, 2017 at 9:54 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Patticake
“Filth” Closes First NYC Chick-Fil-A Outlet
January 4, 2016 News, Religion
Update below. Gothamist reports:
New York City’s first towering Chick-Fil-A has hit a stumbling block in its plans for domination of the city’s fast food fried chicken landscape. A Christmas Eve inspection by the Department of Health uncovered a host of critical violations, resulting in 59 violation points, squarely in C territory. On December 30th, the restaurant closed its doors, indicating it would reopen for breakfast on January 4th.
The five critical violations included food held at improper temperatures and food not cooled by an approved method. Filth flies, food not protected from possible contamination and soiled wiping cloths were also cited. A previously ungraded inspection earlier in the month returned with 39 violation points, indicating things got worse—not better—between the two inspections
Hi Agent. Hope all is well. I look forward to the play offs with the last spot being determined by the last game (GB & Detroit). I would expect a Dallas vs NE SB. Rookies vs the ageless Vets. Setting up to be a good one if it happens.
Anyways, regarding the article Not as bad as past years, but still bad isnt really a positive endorsement of the worst law ever passed. A call to recall is how I read it.
FFA, Detroit looked good for a half and scored 21. They got no more after Dallas defensive adjustments and Stafford was running for his life every series. He is a good quarterback with a great arm, but sometimes he is a bit too proud of it and makes mistakes. I kind of think he will look good at home when GB comes calling. GB seems to rely on Hail Mary’s to win like they did with the Bears who really had them on the ropes. My prediction is Detroit by 3, but I could be wrong.
Life Long Bear Fan myself…. I still can name every starter from 85.
From what I saw, the new QB looked pretty sharp at times. Had receivers not been dropping balls at the rate they were, they may have won a few more games.
They really got pounded by injuries which is a sign of poor conditioning.
Ouch! 38-10 isn’t a good sign for the near future.
December 30, 2016 at 12:21 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
The important thing to remember is that football sucks, they play for about 11 minutes over a 3+ hour stretch, and it is popular because it is easy for dumb people to follow.
Insulting hard working people’s recreation activities?! We expect more over the next 8 years.
You forgot to use the usual ‘deplorable’ or ‘reprehensible’.
How far can you throw a football? A baseball? How long can you throw a hissy fit over the election results? I’ll bet the latter is the longest you can do.
DePolar, a few on this blog need to take advantage of DeBlasio’s free counseling sessions to get over their grief of losing. They are the sorest of losers.
December 30, 2016 at 10:41 am
DePolarBearables says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Perhaps they can attend an Al Gore lecture on how to be a gracious loser?
Or, maybe not.
December 30, 2016 at 10:10 am
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
UW- …..and even dumber people to comment on. I’m going to guess that you don’t have a clue what happens on a football field. I’ll also guess that you don’t have a social life……or friends……
Jax, Congratulations to your Jaguars for the last game. After the coaching change, it looked like they played with more energy. Hopefully, the draft will be good and the team more competitive next year.
January 5, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Uw says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Jax, your first sentence is not written in proper English. Please try again so it is comprehensible, and in the future try not to make major errors in a sentence criticizing intelligence. Maybe you meant yourself, since you too are commenting on football?
December 30, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Patticake says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
UW…I wish that you would talk to us and tell us just where all of your anger comes from…are you this angry every day? It must be so exhausting for you…turn that frown upside down!!! You’ll better much better off for it!!
Says the person who has never made a comment that wasn’t about somebody or a slur.
December 30, 2016 at 6:38 pm
Pseudonym says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Patticake = Trollicake
January 2, 2017 at 8:31 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
@actu-lieber; please find another cesspool website to spin your trash talk. This one is going to be cleaned up by IJ administration like it was a Super Fund site.
December 31, 2016 at 11:05 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Hey FFA,
Quick question for you. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to support a guy who calls people names like Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and Little Marco and then berate me for calling Drumpf for what he actually is? Don’t you think it’s ironic you say my professional demeanor has sunk, but yet you support a guy who talks about his Little Donnie on a political stage, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has stated he would “date” his own daughter if he could, has admitted to watching under-aged girl contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant, has admitted to watching legal age contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant (against their will), and has been named in multiple lawsuits alleging he had sexual interactions with minors? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this President-Elect has done a phenomenal job of highlighting the hypocrisy that lives and pretty much breeds within today’s Republican Party.
@CapTroll Asteroid: The same could be said about a person who sabotaged Bernie with the help of the DNC, and called half of her opponents deplorable, reprehensible and irredeemable.
Further, and worse, she exposed our country’s national security details and top secret information, to try to hide what an incredible failure she is, by attempting and failing to keep her communications secret. Then she started LYING about it, REPEATEDLY and without shame, after being caught exposing top secret info and being caught LYING.
Yogi,
I don’t know how many times I need to write it for you to comprehend it, but I am not a Hillary fan. These are the 2 worst candidates of all time. And, they both ran horrible campaigns. Now we have a con artist for a President. A fraud. A horrible person. He is our President, but he is a most unethical one. I am so old, I remember when we didn’t like candidates supported by Russia, the KKK, and ISIS.
He then goes over the top as usual, but what I see here is that he’s finding it difficult to say things about Trump. A con artist, fraud, horrible person, and unethical. None of it linked to data, and then the only data he has here, vindicates Trump. A sign the guy is starting to see data doesn’t support his labels.
Also, Russia does not support Trump in any substantial way. They hated Hillary as a lesser of two evils just like you, and they saw a double opportunity by supporting Trump:
Getting people paranoid about Trump. It shuts down the American public entirely. Also, Assange has never been a supporter of any government, and he has said several times, his sources are not Russian government folks.
He may be under Russian protection, but if you know the history of Assange, you will know this guy hates governments.
January 5, 2017 at 9:56 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
censorship
Yogi,
I don’t know how many times I need to write it for you to comprehend it, but I am not a Hillary fan. These are the 2 worst candidates of all time. And, they both ran horrible campaigns. Now we have a con artist for a President. A fraud. A horrible person. He is our President, but he is a most unethical one. I am so old, I remember when we didn’t like candidates supported by Russia, the KKK, and ISIS.
January 3, 2017 at 5:15 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Cap,
I thought the guy was a complete joke and am stunned he actually survived the primaries. I remember laughing at the TV when he announced. I looked at my roomie at the time and said no way!
Kaish or Walker would have been better then either.
When we first crossed paths and for several years to follow, you never engaged in name calling. I dont agree with all your positions, but at least you didnt sound like you belong on a middle school play ground.
I only have names for this orange guy because I think it should be understood who this person is. Some of his supporters, heck I’d venture to say most, do not know he was named in a child raping lawsuit. Most don’t know he talked about peeping out underage girls at the Miss USA Teen Pageant. Most don’t know who this guy is but they voted for him anyhow. I’m simply calling him for who he is. The words I use about him are true.
I’m with you, I liked Kasich. Can’t agree about Walker, though. Too many ties to the Koch’s. He was their “golden boy”.
I only have names for this orange guy because I think it should be understood who this person is. Some of his supporters, heck I’d venture to say most, do not know he was named in a child raping lawsuit. Most don’t know he talked about peeping out underage girls at the Miss USA Teen Pageant. Most don’t know who this guy is but they voted for him anyhow. I’m simply calling him for who he is. The words I use about him are true.
I’m with you, I liked Kasich. Can’t agree about Walker, though. Too many ties to the Koch’s. He was their “golden boy”.
January 5, 2017 at 9:55 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
censorship
Hey FFA,
Quick question for you. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to support a guy who calls people names like Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and Little Marco and then berate me for calling Drumpf for what he actually is? Don’t you think it’s ironic you say my professional demeanor has sunk, but yet you support a guy who talks about his Little Donnie on a political stage, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has stated he would “date” his own daughter if he could, has admitted to watching under-aged girl contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant, has admitted to watching legal age contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant (against their will), and has been named in multiple lawsuits alleging he had sexual interactions with minors? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this President-Elect has done a phenomenal job of highlighting the hypocrisy that lives and pretty much breeds within today’s Republican Party.
Just out of curiosity, since President Trump will make America great again, we can assume it is currently not, but was once great. Please tell us how far back President Trump will take us to make us great again and for whom will it be great?
It will remove us from the destructive tentacles of Socialism.
It may take us to a situation where LBJ’s social engineering failures are replaced or repaired significantly so that future generations will have OPTIONS as to how to fund their retirement and other aspects of their lives according to the personal freedoms were are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.
January 3, 2017 at 3:26 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Socialized retirement and health programs.
SSec will eventually be replaced by 401k type plans in the control of PRIVATE financial firms.
Same thing for ACA being replaced by privately administered by private insurers.
January 3, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
“Fair enough.
Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.”
A comment you arrogantly make because you yourself don’t understand the steps to socialism, and the more you say this the more it shows you are willing to allow bad actions, especially when you say this:
“So, if rights are taken away from a segment of the population, inflation increases, the wealth gap increases more, and/or the economy goes into a recession it is because of brainwashing?”
So then, you want to engage in regulations to eliminate the wealth gap? Could that be why you agree with targeted tax programs based on wealth to redistribute through social programs, and then you insist those aren’t forms of socialism because the state doesn’t control production? What if they took 80%, and redistribute it, would it still not be socialism to you? Or would it be not bad because it isn’t socialism? What would the spin be?
You have the weaknesses of a young kid on these issues, and the people you mock who are decrying socialism are the fix, whereas you are the leak allowing these issues with how the system runs.
A leak that needs to be fixed.
January 3, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
By the by:
Currently when we combine local federal and state, we spend about 40% of GDP on social programs.
My question is: When have we spent too much?
The pay inequality gap must exist due to how many people can be rich, you cannot eliminate it when you don’t even understand it. If we are spending 40% of the GDP on social programs by default the poor already get their pay, plus 40% of GDP on programs. That constitutes a majority of the GDP available being dedicated to them.
It is wildly disingenuous to imply that they receive too little currently, and it is very truthful to say we have too many programs that are wasteful, or that they receive too much given this number. Otherwise, I must believe that the economy simply cannot work. That’s the only other conclusion, as we can do the math on that one and come to that clearly based on how much left there is to give. At that point, the best way of handling this is making the economy able to pass around and create pie, not to have the government take pies.
Go make pies and sell them. Does it help anyone that then a third of your pie in addition must be taxed?
January 3, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob,
I was responding to TrumPolarBear’s comment that there are tentacles of Socialism in place. I want to know what those are and if he evens knows what is Socialism.
I would think that someone as intelligent and educated as you would want people to use terms correctly, not some twisted, rhetorical definition.
Once again, you totally missed my point. I was only listing a few things I expect to see over the course of the next 4 years that would make America less great for some people. If they do not come to fruition, I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong.
You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader.
January 3, 2017 at 4:22 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
TrumPolarBear,
All of those programs have existed through several administrations of both parties, including President Reagan. If you think they will be eliminated, you are far more naive that I already imagined.
January 3, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“It will not take us BACKWARD.
It will remove us from the destructive tentacles of Socialism.”
Whenever a conservative says something remotely similar to this, and the clear social engineering and social programs the left supports have sustainability issues, by your own admission, to then reply this:
“Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.”
Is not only ignorant, it is immoral. Like a snot nosed brat you have preemptively accused him of thinking like a child and that you have it figured out. Not only have you accused him of thinking like a child, you have accused him of doing so by choice to protect partisan party and to go after Obama.
It is harmful. You’re going to reply I do the same. This is your same old cyclical crud. But the root of it is you. And you refuse to acknowledge that.
However, with myself, I just here (albeit in a nice way) told a conservative who I thought might be going into the “poor people shouldn’t get help” field, what being conservative is: Focusing on how best to help people, and correcting people regarding how programs work. Before the ACA people didn’t just die without insurance.
And I have it below for you to read. I don’t just accept crud people say on any political spectrum, and I don’t focus on being a jerk know it all when someone says a phrase that I have labeled as bad. If you cannot handle or do not understand what a conservative means when they say that, and you must then discredit them, you are immoral. You could just see through it like I do, and get to their actual point, but you would rather focus on making something the point, because you want so badly to believe that is what republicans believe, facts be damned (literally, that’s not just an expression here, it applies. You want republicans to believe things facts be damned so you can call them low information voters with bad reading comprehension.).
“You need to remember you’re talking with liberals here. When I read this the first thing I get out of it is you don’t want to help the poor with such conditions. But you have to realize, they do have assistance. The poorest anyway, and I believe they do need and deserve help. A liberal would read your post, not know this (due to being low information voters) and get this out of it “I don’t want those darn poor people getting free coverage!” (which is what Ron, Actu, and UW get out of it, especially Ron)
But in regards to that: In the states where poor people cannot afford insurance, they will get coverage for these very same pre existing conditions. It just won’t be insurance coverage.
The only scenario I could see someone not getting coverage for this with state assistance would be if they are not low income, did not buy the proper insurance, and also made poor spending decisions which lead to them not being able to afford insurance.
While I do feel sorry for such people, it would be wildly disingenuous to imply that the poorest families cannot get coverage or state assistance. They most certainly can. The majority of cases in which someone cannot get some sort of care is extremely limited for one (As there are laws you have to be provided care for life threatening illnesses, you will get a bill and go bankrupt, but you will get care and there are very few loopholes for this), and for two, is not from people in the poorest sections of society.
We should focus on how best to help people as conservatives and force these guys to give up the moral high ground. Ron uses it on you two all the time.”
January 3, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Bob,
I was responding to TrumPolarBear’s comment that there are tentacles of Socialism in place. I want to know what those are and if he evens knows what is Socialism.”
I quoted that, so I’m well aware. And he’s right. We are heading toward that, and social programs are definitely being put in place that lead towards unsustainable social programs and away from private ones to handle people’s needs.
“I would think that someone as intelligent and educated as you would want people to use terms correctly, not some twisted, rhetorical definition.”
I don’t take your twisting, you’re the one doing it. You should understand fully what he means, and should focus on the problem. Not people’s phrasing. You told me you want to focus on the problem, now it’s phrasing you do?
“Once again, you totally missed my point. I was only listing a few things I expect to see over the course of the next 4 years that would make America less great for some people. If they do not come to fruition, I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong.”
What? Simplify your comment…
“You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader.”
Ah yes, this again. No. I don’t. Revoke that comment. What you just put above made little sense and you didn’t clarify well enough. We are posting online. There are always misinterpretations based on multiple ways of reading things. If you do not refrain from this typical arrogant crud, you will get the brunt force of my intellect as you have seen before, you don’t fare very well. I know you’re smart enough to realize how much you were humiliated in the healthcare debates. If you want me to start debating with the goal of proving you stupid, continue. I will easily prove you stupid. You’re not a challenge there, get over it.
Focus on what you know, focus on proper debate. Don’t over extend yourself.
January 3, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I will also add I make a point of saying when I agree with someone. And just recently it extended to both Planet, and UW.
Have either of these two done this with me?
UW was mostly right on his recent comment. I would even say 90% right. Where he messed it up was then trying to link it to Bush W and say Obama had nothing to do with it, and then said the Deltas must by default vindicate Obama.
That is something I don’t tolerate without evidence. I would need to see something Obama did to slow it.
Clearly something had to have triggered it, and by default Bush W has to get blame for it. But I’m more interested in stopping it. If Obama did something we need to know, in order to mimic it. And if no one has, we need to know, so we know we need to do something.
But more on point, I said it was 100% accurate that immigration had nothing to do with it, and I condemned anyone who said as such.
I then also said that however, to then use false equivalency to say anyone who brings up immigration issues must be the same as that, is, as I like saying lately, wildly disingenuous.
I am willing to agree on many areas, but most people here are unwilling to say they are wrong.
And no, I’m not equal here. Just recently I told confused I was wrong and was over reacting.
It’s about time people here talked with the intention of criticizing, and accepting criticism too.
January 3, 2017 at 6:47 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Here’s two examples….
Soc Sec was a safety net Social program to fund retirement income. 401ks can easily replace them, and be much more efficient than the US Govt can ever be. Time will be needed to wean young people away from Social Security and onto pensions ( a rebirth! ) and Tax Deferred Retirement plans such as 401k’s IRAs, etc.
LBJ (“Lock Box”) Johnson raided the Soc Sec lockbox to fund his two social engineering programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Republican Representative Helger(sp?) tried to restore the lock box and force return of the borrowing in 1999, but he was filibustered by Democrats. So, the lock box is still open for Obama and other Dems to raid for social engineering programs. But thee PAYGO schemes are known to be ponzi schemes that are due to fail when there are too many people being paid and not enough people to pay.
The same concept of saving for retirement through PRIVATELY administered IRAs, 401ks, pensions, with tax deferral, can be applied via Health Savings Accounts to health insurance and health care expenses. That is the theory behind the Republican’s plan nucleus. Details are ahead, after agreement and number crunching provides alternatives for the committees to disuss and agree upon for an HSA bill.
January 3, 2017 at 6:51 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Sorry about the awkward wording in the PAYGO sentence.
And ‘discuss’, not ‘disuss’ in the last paragraph.
January 3, 2017 at 9:31 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
It will make everyone great again, except those who are brainwashed into accepting Socialism or Communism. Those latter types will be given the opportunity of their lifetime, but I fear some may be so brainwashed that they will continue to protest and fight against MAGA.
So, if rights are taken away from a segment of the population, inflation increases, the wealth gap increases more, and/or the economy goes into a recession it is because of brainwashing?
January 3, 2017 at 10:09 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
One other thing, is removing ethics from Congress part of making America great again?
Right on, Ron. And, they voted on that behind closed doors in the middle of the night. I’m so old, I remember when conservatives complained about decisions being made in secret rooms in the red-eyed hours. I’m sure guys like Yogi and Agent will be consistent and speak out against that action.
January 3, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
In the spirit of being a man of my word, I will applaud Drumpf for calling out the GOP for making it a priority to remove the independent ethics office.
January 3, 2017 at 1:27 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I 2nd that, Captain Planet. Kudos to President-elect Trump.
Also, thanks to President-elect trump, Ford has cancelled plans to invest and expand in Mexico, will invest $700 million here and create 700 more union jobs. Of course, we cannot forget the 28,000 union jobs Ford created over the past 5 years under a different president, who shall remain nameless.
I also commend Trump for speaking out against the vote to shut down the independent ethics committee and forcing change.
I just hope Agent sees these posts and doesn’t try to argue we never give Trump any accolades and only post negative things about him.
January 3, 2017 at 3:27 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
There is NO RIGHT to health care, so give up trying to lie about it. You can’t fool me; I’m smarter than the average polar bear!
January 3, 2017 at 3:29 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Fake news about Republicans removing ethics committee is floating around today.
Wait for the TRUTH about what they intended to do before all the mis-information came out, purveyed by the Liberal Main Stream Media to discredit Republicans and cast them as evil and corrupt.
January 3, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Trump has access to more information than we do, and he said ‘they…weaken[ed] the Independent Ethics Watchdog.’
Should we not believe what Trump said about it? After all, he’s not part of the Liberal Main Stream Media, right?
January 3, 2017 at 3:43 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
“I 2nd that, Captain Planet. Kudos to President-elect Trump.
Also, thanks to President-elect trump, Ford has cancelled plans to invest and expand in Mexico, will invest $700 million here and create 700 more union jobs. Of course, we cannot forget the 28,000 union jobs Ford created over the past 5 years under a different president, who shall remain nameless.
Union jobs are not a superior way of handling jobs when you can simply make a conducive environment that would save them and not have a cost of upkeep, in addition to a political mess of hierarchy maintaining it that can become insanely corrupt. The less layers the better. Obama is not getting credit for keeping jobs here, I’m sorry Ron. I won’t allow it.
You are using false equivalency again.
Obama has failed, and I will see you say it.
January 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob,
You said, “Union jobs are not a superior way of handling jobs when you can simply make a conducive environment that would save them and not have a cost of upkeep, in addition to a political mess of hierarchy maintaining it that can become insanely corrupt.” If that is true, why is President-elect Trump so willing to accept credit for saving and creating all of these union jobs? Either you are wrong or he should be criticizing Ford and Carrier. I’ll let you tell me which.
You said, “Obama is not getting credit for keeping jobs here, I’m sorry Ron. I won’t allow it.” Please quote me where I gave him credit.
You said, “Obama has failed, and I will see you say it.” No you will not, because he has not.
President Obama has only failed in your eyes because you expected him to turn our country to Socialism. However, we are no closer to that now than we were in 2008.
It really is OK to admit that the economy has actually improved since he took office. It may have improved as much as you and I would have liked, but it did improve.
I have discovered the problem. All you care about is giving credit and dishing out blame, where all I care about are results.
Also, why must you make so many false assumptions regarding my intent?
January 3, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“President Obama has only failed in your eyes because you expected him to turn our country to Socialism. However, we are no closer to that now than we were in 2008.”
Incorrect. And the only reason you said this was to steer away from my points and instead attack an ideal. Also, we have socialized programs. Healthcare is now being taxed and paid for to be shifted to the poor, instead of using the state funds we already had, and making a conducive environment for the middle class to get coverage. See my comment above to Agent on this, regarding medical care. We have moved toward social programs more than private under Obama. And that’s not the reason I say he’s bad for jobs. I say it because he is, and because what you just said regarding Unions creates a hierarchy of aholes reliant on pay in order to get other people pay, instead of making a system that works, and reduces the amount that people in the company can get. Unions have upkeep and costs. Trump doesn’t. When he keeps jobs he kept them more efficiently. Unions are responsible for jobs leaving, by the by, due to the cost of unions and other nations not requiring them. See our trade deals. We basically loosened labor laws. You clearly don’t know much on this. That’s why democrats tend to say they were bad, that they loosened labor laws, and republicans agree on other aspects that I won’t go into, it takes more than a cliche idealistic line that you have labeled a group of people as believing.
“It really is OK to admit that the economy has actually improved since he took office. It may have improved as much as you and I would have liked, but it did improve.”
No. It didn’t. Not any bit due to him, and less than it should have. He slowed the recovery. End of story. He inflated housing costs and printed money and artificially lowered the interest on his own deficits.
“I have discovered the problem. All you care about is giving credit and dishing out blame, where all I care about are results.”
What is the problem and what is the fix? I do not care about blame, I care about showing the data and not saying plans work that don’t. I care about focusing on what PLANS people pushed. Not this horse crap. You’re the one who cares about blaming all equally. And again, this is not related to the topic at hand. You’re ranting and labeling character, not concept.
“Also, why must you make so many false assumptions regarding my intent?”
You don’t even know your intent. And you keep on doing this. I label what you’re doing, because it’s what you do. It’s why you kids all think alike, unlike other sections of adults. You’re not more mature than me, you’re much less so, and I am unlike your other 30 year olds. Whereas you are completely like the 24-34 age group, of which I know for a fact you are part. It’s easy to spot how you were targeted, and you’re clueless as to what a pawn you are. I might be so bold here as to say you’re as old as my brother, you sound like the same rough indoctrination level.
He’s 29. His wife is 27. You sound more on her side than on his as he grows up, and given you are a Catholic just like them, these norms should follow suit in your behavior. Are you 25-27? How did I know that Ron? I’m going to be so bold as to make this prediction with me saying it is at least 70% accurate.
January 3, 2017 at 4:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
The only thing that confuses me on your age is you sound more like his wife who is younger which makes me push you younger than I would normally say.
This might be a maturity issue though. If I’m wrong and you are my brother’s actual age, 27-29, it means you are abnormally immature and should work on it. You’re still in the younger demographic and it’s obvious.
Now on the topic at hand:
Obama’s union jobs are not a good thing, and as a whole his economic production has been poor.
Having jobs added without a union is better than pushing unions as the only solution while saying the carrier jobs would leave no matter what (guess what, they didn’t, and it was a simple fix).
January 5, 2017 at 9:57 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
censorship
Right on, Ron. And, they voted on that behind closed doors in the middle of the night. I’m so old, I remember when conservatives complained about decisions being made in secret rooms in the red-eyed hours. I’m sure guys like Yogi and Agent will be consistent and speak out against that action.
January 5, 2017 at 9:58 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
censorship
In the spirit of being a man of my word, I will applaud Drumpf for calling out the GOP for making it a priority to remove the independent ethics office.
January 5, 2017 at 6:05 pm
Uw says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron, Tic Tac Popping, Incest-Curious Trump only complained that it looked bad, not that he had a problem with what they did to the office.
January 3, 2017 at 5:45 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Just out of curiosity, since President Trump will make America great again, we can assume it is currently not, but was once great. Please tell us how far back President Trump will take us to make us great again and for whom will it be great?”
During the build up from Reagan’s tenure into the dot com boom, would be one.
But the biggest aspect that makes America great is being destroyed right now.
The youth does not question. They follow. Over 80% supported Bernie, and they did so because they are definitely less afraid of socialism, and many of them have clearly been indoctrinated.
In order for America to be great, a few things need to be true:
You need to not trust all of government. Not just one side.
This includes gun ownership. The youth trusts cops more than they do the public with owning guns. It’s a bad sign, and it shows America is not great. That America, were it run by the youth right now, would be ok with doing away with many rights, putting in place real socialism (and yes, college grads right now support socialism more than capitalism, actual socialism) and rights of free speech would be taken away (hate speech being supported as a serious issue on campuses is out of control) and all of this is very much so linked with democrats and Obama.
What will make America great again?
Thinkers. People who question. People who are paranoid, and people who are not even remotely open to socialism. A move back toward religious principles in the U.S. A move toward knowing that birth control to fix your bad sexual decisions doesn’t work. Avoiding pregnancy isn’t the issue, avoiding bad dating decisions is (not of person, but to have sex before marriage, yes I said it, dopamine production does get harmed with each break up, and watch me while I say THIS is the reason kids are failing more than their parents).
A return to common sense, moral fiber, responsibility, etc..
I’ll watch any of them, and they all have their bad eggs.
I quote New York Times against themselves all the time, and I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan).
I love doing that. Fox news does contradict themselves though as well. They all have strengths and advantages.
I will give CNN some credit for being all over conservatives. We should do that.
We should just also be all over liberals.
I don’t trust any of them, even though I constantly call republicans better, I really would not trust any of them with my kid’s futures. Not one. Not even the supposedly religiously devout, and in fact, I don’t even care about that since it is so often faked and used by both parties (Biden Catholic and Ryan Catholic was no coincidence in 2012.)
“I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan)”
No you stupid, illiterate dolt, is because you use an article from 1981 aa evidence of his whole term, which went beyond 81,and because in reality the budget he was against was because he wanted more spending.
Where is my Cook quote, liar or wrong?
January 6, 2017 at 5:52 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“Uw says:
“I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan)”
No you stupid, illiterate dolt, is because you use an article from 1981 aa evidence of his whole term, which went beyond 81,and because in reality the budget he was against was because he wanted more spending.
Where is my Cook quote, liar or wrong?”
I know how to read you dumb fuck. Don’t call me an illiterate dolt. Those were his proposals, and I also gave a CBO link showing further proposed cuts. The plan that passed was a bill sponsored by a democrat. The CBO plan showed that his spending halted automatic increases from Carter by the way.
You can’t simply say that they don’t count, it is ignorant, and you never once showed a plan that showed Reagan proposed spending increases. You tried to imply defense increases, but again, I showed a link that even though Reagan expanded military expenditures and created a new division, military spending were offset by other cuts for the most part, as you can see in this chart by the percentage of GDP military spending.
And you have very incorrectly tried to imply that was the source of his deficits. You’re wrong. You’re also wrong that he didn’t propose spending cuts. Want to prove me wrong? Show me a CBO rated bill, or anything, showing a proposal from Reagan to increase spending of our primary programs (Social security, medicare, non mandatory spending, etc). If you can’t, shut up. I already showed you are clueless on deficits when you actually tried to argue that the Iraq war spending was not included in Bush W’s deficits, after I said that if you include the Iraq War spending, it’s amazing that Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession. I said this proves his tax cuts were not horrible and did not cause the deficits we are now having constantly. Your reply was that he caused deficits by hiding the cost of the Iraq war and that Obama now has to pay for it. The war was on the books, for the full over trillion dollars of spending it incurred during Bush W’s tenure. You were wrong there.
Now then, back up your claim that Reagan increased spending, and stop telling me “that was just one year dolt, he was in office for 8” I also showed a CBO plan for 1982, dolt, not just 1981. That’s 2. You need to show increases proposed. Think you can do it, dolt?
On the Cook quote: If you noticed what you referenced never showed the study. It was obviously another conversation when I finally said your cook study backed up my study. This was because before then, none of your links had the source data. As you can see, check that link and that site you gave me. NONE of your source links gave the cook et al data, and now NEITHER of us can find, so you couldn’t have possibly reviewed it at the time. Now you are asking me where in the data is agrees with my other link that you ignored, (which it does, it says 50%) but I could just as easily ask where in your data is the evidence for your 97% comment? Because your link doesn’t show it! It shows a conclusion from Guardian, whereas my blogs, all of them but two, showed the reference data, and one of the two the link was simply broken because it became too old and the link was changed.
My link above proves that less than half of climatologists agree that mankind is the primary driver behind climate change.
Instead of then going “oh, that’s credible” you instead are now focused on calling me a liar, going after my credibility, and refuse to focus on the data. The only reason I am calling you out on cook, is because you have for MONTHS said I’m not reviewing my data. It is retaliation you ignoramus.
My link is solid for the climatologists that disagree. I also focus on this because you have claimed that only people who deny science disagree with the government’s commentary on it. That is a lie. Half the community disagrees with it, the oceanic data from 2003 onward doesn’t match up with what the NOAA has tried to combine from 4 different measurement methods with hundreds of differences in the measuring locations, to consolidate into one chart to go back 100 years, there are misleading aspects the government is doing all the time, and instead of calling that out, you want to call the people who are sane, science deniers? Go tell that to the 53% of scientists who say disagree with your agenda.
January 6, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
>On the Cook quote: If you noticed what you referenced never showed the study. It was obviously another conversation when I finally said your cook study backed up my study.
Lmao. Same thing you always do and have done with me and Confused. You say the study isn’t valid and then claim you can’t find the study. I just looked in the thread UW is writing about and you are crazy as usual. You link a blog with 100 other blogs against the Cook study but claim there is no source data. The name of the study is the source data dummy. It’s a major study and can be found easily, buuuut, you can’t debunk it if you can’t find it, so you are full of shit either way, as always. Your Reagan obsession is as weird as your Agent one. I may have missed it, but I bet you never provided the Bush dollars for the Obama years of the Iraq War either.
Why are you such a fucking nut? I looked through that thread for “catastrophe” and no hits came up except in your rants, you are obviously wrong. Just asmit it, you lose the little credibility you have left by doing this. The guy you cite in that thread is a hardcore Christian explaining away climate change with God. You are fucking clueless. You are crazy with 3 to 4 people now and getting embarrassed in each one, but think you are winning a debate somewhere. Grow up kido
You go insane and start demanding people tell you where they work! You’ve lost it man. Where do you work, maybe it biases you since they obviously support nutters
January 4, 2017 at 5:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I don’t know why anyone listens to you with your attempts to attack based on affiliation.
Do you know what you just said? Let’s take the definition and break what you said down. And for you, you mean it like this. I’m not breaking out the word to try and play the “you didn’t use the right word!” and to say you are clueless. No. I’m saying you full well knew and know, and you are a corrupt worthless human for what you implied here.
” 1.
capable of being believed; believable:
a credible statement.
2.
worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:”
That is the definition.
Can you please explain why she can only be taken credibly if she is not with Fox News? You labeled her as a human before hand? So suddenly she herself will be worthy of belief, and trust worthy if she works at for example CNN?
You have made her owned by the company who employs her, how liberal of you.
Moot.
It’s gonna be cut down by PresidenTrump faster than a decaying cherry tree.
The repeal bill will be short enough so we can ALL READ IT BEFORE the Republican controlled Congress passes it.
They know it will destroy them to get rid of it, they are cowards, and are already discussing putting it off until after the 2020 election. They were already pretty much committed to putting it off until after the midterms, which is I guess “day one” for Drumpf. Real profiles in courage.
Wrong. Lies.
Repeal will happen within 48 hours of TrumPresident taking the oath of office.
Replacement will take place in phases, starting with legislation on a federal and state level to allow sales of HI across state lines.
Tort reform will take place over a year or two, state by state, to reduce or limit punitive damage awards, and implement other measures to lower costs of malpractice insurance, which ultimately is passed onto patients.
Other aspects of the replacemetn plan will take varying amounts of time. Example: health savings account tax credits will be debated in FULL Congressional sessions after committees refine the details… this takes a few months at least, for each step.
You are just repeating LIES being pushed by FAKE NEWS outlets such as Huff & Puff POSt, CNN, MSLSD, NBC, C-BS, and ABC.
They are cowards if they don’t repeal it, and they are evil pompous belligerent wind bags who always jam through unpopular things if and when they do AMIRITE?
Whatever fits your narrative, eh UW?
No one is buying what you’re selling.
Are you really stupid enough to think those things are mutually exclusive? Your deranged rants at Confused and UW see almost as weird as your defense of Agent.
Chop! Chop! Chop!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/04/obama-pence-head-to-capitol-hill-as-health-law-fight-begins.html
Clear the area below! It’s going to fall in a little over two weeks!
I hear now that FOUR replacement plans were submitted by Republicans and that Dems are aware of ALL FOUR.
That is a BIG difference from 8 years ago when ACA was hidden until the vote was taken by Nancy Pelosi Galore.
The holdup is going to be resolved by discussion of the aspects of the four proposals being combined into one proposal by deciding which aspects will work and can be pushed through various STATE legislatures, as well as the US Congress.
Stay tuned! It’s going to be revealed piecemeal for the next few weeks or months as the four proposals are reviewed by ‘the adults in the room’ i.e. Congress. And, it will not be decided by those sore losers who have now claimed “They’re Gonna Make America Sick, Again!”.
Are you talking about the four I have referenced?
Are you aware of Tom Price’s? First they said the republicans didn’t address risk averse issues, then when Price’s made a penalty if you went without insurance which would go away after 2 years (dealing with people who just buy into the market when they need it)
They said it would slam people with prexisting conditions with higher premiums if they didn’t go with insurance.
With the ACA it’s ok if we hit those people for the greater good to contain costs, and with the Price plan, it’s because Price hates the poor and people with pre-existing conditions.
And when the ACA fined people it was for the greater good, but when Price sets up a similar program to deal with risk averse issues, well, it’s because he’s evil.
I don’t fully like Price’s plan as it is though.
It’s not my favorite of the 4.
I’m eager to see what Trump suggests.
And this is neglecting to mention that many liberals that vote, including a certain liberal here *UW* *cough cough* say the mandate is the only way of dealing with risk averse issues and the republican plans don’t.
So there is an entire section of the population who believes republican plans don’t deal with averse issues, because they haven’t looked into the plans and pretend they did.
I can say there is a novel way to deal with the risk averse issue. It has to do with the policy form, and residual market pools being revised or resurrected.
I can’t say the Republicans are including it in their final plan proposal.
The risk averse issue was addressed by one person’s proposal by a compromise in regard to the subsidy issue. I can’t reveal more now because it would take a while to sketch the plan out.
No, I didn’t read Price’s proposal. I’ll get to it this week. Thanks for the 411 on it.
Dems are lying about the 4 proposals already, despite having access to their texts. ALL of the Dems who are doing so SHOULD BE CALLED OUT FOR LYING. Which Republican has the spine to call a colleague Dem a liar? I’ll watch to see.
There are things I could add, but I’ve got to get away from my PC for a few hours.
More later…
The bill itself:
http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/HR%202300%20Empowering%20Patients%20First%20Act%202015.pdf
The summary:
http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/Section%20by%20Section%20of%20HR%202300%20Empowering%20Patients%20First%20Act%202015.pdf
This is the section UW has a problem with,
“Allows individuals to opt out of Medicare, Medicaid
, TRICARE, and VA benefits and receive tax
credit to purchase personal health plan instead.”
Ryan for example has tried to push it all to credits, this guy is trying to take a moderate approach of allowing for your choice on the matter. That has pros and cons of it’s own.
I like the credit basis increasing with age, older people would need credits more.
Also:
“Increases access to individual health coverage by a
llowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one
state to offer them to residents of any other state
.
Allows consumers to shop for health insurance acros
s state lines, just like other insurance products –
online, by mail, by phone, or in consultation with
an insurance agent. ”
A good thing we have all talked about.
But those are the limit of my praise for the bill.
And here I am quoting bills and referencing what I like about them again.
I don’t see the liberals here doing that. And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.
“And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.”
Wrong. I said AGENT’s posts aren’t based in reality. I did not direct that comment at you what-so-ever.
To wit: “As I mentioned to bob, Agent sometimes says things that aren’t based in reality.”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/12/15/435515.htm/?comments
You even quoted that exact sentence in one of your replies.
Hey pompous windbag, and now an insult is due to you, yes you did
Let’s see if I can go find it.
““And just recently Confused was stating how often my opinions are not rooted in reality as if I’m worse than your average bear on this.”
Wrong. I said AGENT’s posts aren’t based in reality. I did not direct that comment at you what-so-ever.”
bob – thanks for your reply. I will sincerely apologize if you can find ANY comment of mine where I said some of your posts aren’t based in reality.
However….
If you can’t find such a post, and as I already provided evidence to support my argument, will you apologize to me for claiming I said something about you that I never actually said?
“bob – thanks for your reply. I will sincerely apologize if you can find ANY comment of mine where I said some of your posts aren’t based in reality.
However….
If you can’t find such a post, and as I already provided evidence to support my argument, will you apologize to me for claiming I said something about you that I never actually said?”
Not a chance, due exactly to how you phrased this, otherwise I may have.
I know what your goal is with this. I’m not stupid, like a millennial and Ron you make traps like this all the time instead of being direct.
If you wanted an apology just ask for it. Also, I am not referring to solely that comment, which I will admit being wrong on, but again, I won’t apologize due to this comment.
I take that back, I will apologize, if you plainly explain to me what you were doing with that phrasing, (which we both know) and then apologize for it.
Then I will apologize for being wrong on this one.
“I take that back, I will apologize, if you plainly explain to me what you were doing with that phrasing”
It wasn’t a trap and I’m not playing games. Take what I wrote at face value. You claim I said your posts aren’t based in reality. I vehemently denied your accusation. I demanded you provide proof of what you claim I said. I demanded an apology if you can’t provide evidence where I said such a thing.
But I know there is no proof because I never said it to you! I said it TO you, but not ABOUT you. Big difference.
Can you find ANY comment of mine where I said your posts aren’t based in reality? No, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
So you need to apologize for accusing me of saying something that you can’t back up because I never actually said it.
Also Confused:
I have to preemptively point you out when I make facts. It’s not a choice. I have to.
Unless you make a point of showing that the other people who are putting out facts are over stating their facts, people will use false equivalency. Your ideals are what I’m out to disprove, you’re just caught in the crossfire.
I’ve seen too many kids mislead by these types of comments, that care more about moral high ground than facts.
What were you trying to do with that phrase? I’ll repeat my question. What was I?
I was trying to defeat what I perceived was an attempt to say conservatives myself included, are not based in reality.
What you were doing, was preemptively trying to defend yourself and show that we just make comments that aren’t right and won’t apologize for it, so we are totally unwilling to admit we are wrong. If we apologize we damage our credibility, if we don’t we damage our credibility. It was an assault without an intention of fixing process. My attempt was to fix process and help people, you cared only about you.
“It wasn’t a trap and I’m not playing games. Take what I wrote at face value. You claim I said your posts aren’t based in reality. I vehemently denied your accusation. I demanded you provide proof of what you claim I said. I demanded an apology if you can’t provide evidence where I said such a thing.”
Yes. It was. You aren’t owed an apology when someone is wrong about your attacks that you constantly do on the right. An alteration, maybe, an apology, no. You worded it the way you did for coercion.
“But I know there is no proof because I never said it to you! I said it TO you, but not ABOUT you. Big difference.”
You actually said it to Planet, but that’s neither here nor there. Keep your posts shorter.
“Can you find ANY comment of mine where I said your posts aren’t based in reality? No, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.”
You have not made any implications that my research is not rooted in reality? You haven’t discredited conservatives and said they aren’t fact oriented? I call BS. There’s a reason I’ve been kicking your teeth in here.
“So you need to apologize for accusing me of saying something that you can’t back up because I never actually said it.”
No. I don’t. You need to stop attacking conservatives and calling them low information folks and focusing on the stupidest of phrases. Whether it’s me or someone else.
After debating with you on climate change and other issues I’m beginning to see it’s not worth my time.
You declare yourself better than Agent all the time, and recently in your own post you said you didn’t know the numbers, just the conclusion and who should you believe and how if you have to actually digest numbers yourself.
I actually had to explain: No one. You should believe no one, especially when the claim is radical. Not until you can break the numbers down more, and until you can, it’s insanity to blame any one person for not listening to the “facts” on climate change.
You’re not different than Agent. Have you noticed I don’t often debate back and forth with agent other than to say I agree or disagree? Why don’t you just take that route?
Or recently I flatly called him wrong about the immigration crises being linked to opioid sales, and that’s only because I could actually prove it. When I did so I didn’t tell him his beliefs were not based on reality and conservatives were low information. I simply told him it does a disservice to actual conservatism. I even gave UW a bravo, before he had to fight about it.
I’m really tire of how people regard conservatism here, you included in that.
I’m getting pretty tired too.
You lie about what I say and “knowing” my intent while ignoring what I actually say (this conversation); you make up arguments that have no bearing on our debate (like citing Arctic historical weather reports in a discussion about Texas temperatures); you demand I post replies to you and then literally say you are refusing to read it (last conversation); you attack, demean and insult me even though I consistently show you respect by not responding in kind (this conversation); and yet you hypocritically call out people when they insult you.
You are a disingenuous hypocritical lying troll — at best.
Oh I’m sorry Confused, could you simply not handle that I said you think my opinions are not rooted in reality?
Above I told you that you focus on the wrong things, and you do. I put a huge three post aspect about healthcare, and inserted ONE line about you.
Now, whether or not I was right on that line you are focusing on instead of actual issues.
You’re a child. A millennial who cares about phrasing more than concept. A fool.
You tell me why we had to go into this much on a conversation because of one line, you have failed at life if you think this was merited. In which, I said, you’re right, I was wrong about the ONE LINE but I also said you do in fact attack others here based on that very same concept (and you do).
I’m sick of you kid. Get lost.
Did my one line send you off the edge and you had to correct it? Poor baby!
It’s just toooo much to handle isn’t it confused?
I’m just such a bad guy for that one line, a hypocritical troll!
Here’s my rule in life:
Punch me once, I punch back twice as hard. Try again, and I’ll sweep your legs out from under your feet, and I’ll slam your face when you’re down this time.
Now here’s what most people miss:
Before that punch back twice as hard, I basically do this: I correct you and give a chance. You don’t take it, you get the consequence. The second time, after I slam you on the ground, before I launch my fist while you’re down, I give another chance, don’t take it, I’ll finish you off.
That is ergo why I said in the middle of my post that it appears that one post was not referring to me, that was my chance, and then I posed my fist over your face saying essentially “You have used this to attack others. This fist is justice for that. Back down or take the fist”. But because you don’t back down, you then get the fist.
If you were actually doing the same, there would be no issue between us. Instead, you squirm like a cowardly worm, refusing to back off your whiny crap. You will have me on your rear as long as you’re on Agent’s. I don’t tolerate this type of behavior.
I’m sorry, did he quote that one politician wrong? Ah da aw!!! Did it hurt your feelers?
Did it hurt your feelers one of my lines was wrong, and now I’m a troll?
Did it hurt your feelers so much you can’t focus on healthcare, and it’s my fault? Wight widdle baby?
Do you even lift, bro?
This is a fully insane nut. This is the part of that most people miss: Insane nut.
Don’t bother with this imbecile anymore, Actu. He doesn’t know how to look at his data. Even resizing the chart to look at the years he is talking about shows a massive increase in military spending, which is even larger in real terms.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2004USb_18s1li011lcn_30t
The insane person says: “it’s amazing that Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession.”
But looking at the data shows this to be false. Since 1950 the deficit in nominal dollars averaged $61.4 billion/yr; during the Bush years it averaged $250.7 billion/yr. Much, much worse.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2009USb_18s2li011lcn_G0f
In real, 2009 dollars, the average deficit from ’50 to Bush averaged about $122 billion, under Bush it averaged over $270 billion. The only year Bush was lower than the average was the first year when he inherited a surplus from Clinton, after that every single year was over the average. To a normal thinking person that means the deficit was than normal years; to Bush that means only one year was “better” than “normal”. Both stupid terms.
Also, this idiot claims, “Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession.” Bush’s ‘one year with worse than normal deficits’ has to be his highest deficit year, which was in real terms 2004, and which there was also no recession. He is incompetent in every regard. He can say he was using nominal dollars, in which case he was right the highest year was during a recession, but as I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, with data, that means every single Bush year was significantly worse than the average deficit and he is still wrong.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2009USk_18s2li011lcn_G0f
He is lying out his ass about the Cook study, and he knows it. He is a piece of shit. He can’t ever provide a quote proving what he has alleged for weeks. He is a flat-out liar, and he can’t admit he was wrong, because he is a pathological liar. He is now arguing something completely different. I recommend you don’t engage with him either, he is damaged, and spiraling right now. Even using his defense figures he is too stupid to adjust the axis to get a better view, or to look at the numbers. Just an insane dolt.
Owned, but those numbers won’t count because they don’t support the story he blabs nonstop.
How much do you want to bet he disappears now?
That was more for you if you pursue it, ACTU. I am done with this moronic disgrace to humanity, he is too disturbed, a pathological liar, and has severe, severe mental problems.
The ACA was not hidden, it was debated in various committees for over a year. Conservatives mostly chose to try to block it instead of participating. Being ignorant doesn’t make something not exist.
Coo1! Now those who voted for Trump will find out what it means to vote against your own self interest when pre-existing conditions and black lung benefits are no longer covered.
And America will finally see the health care plan the GOP always said it had.
I have never been to concerned about pre existing condition exclusions but then again I have always been fortunate to be able to decide to work for an employer that provides coverage and health care portability protection took care of the issue. So for me at least my self interest has been protected.
Had this not been the case I can understand how others would be concerned, my primary problem with ACA from the beginning was mandatory coverage for all or be penalized for choosing to not be covered. Some how that just goes against what I see as a free country but just one man’s opinion.
Automobile Insurance is mandatory in order to operate a motor vehicle
Do you not have a problem with that?
Using seatbelts in Automobiles is mandatory in most if not all states. Do you have a problem with that?
I don’t operate a motor vehicle. My paws are too big and so they press two pedals at once. Humans can do like I do; i.e. walk,… if they don’t want to buy mandatory LIABILITY insurance.
Apparently, you don’t grasp of the key reason for mandatory LIABILITY insurance for injuring OTHERS… VERSUS optional first party health insurance for YOUR ailments…
Bad argument MS PARIS – If I choose not to drive then I don’t have to have auto insurance; I still have the choice. Not so with ACA. Using the logic of the ACA, I would have to have auto insurance even if I NEVER drive. Regardless of what I do I have to have health insurance or I will be punished by the government. BIG difference. I actually know quite a few people who do not drive and to date none of them have auto insurance. Next time try using and apples-to-apples comparison.
Idiotic analogy; you can’t opt-out of needing health care, or everybody would do it.
Jax is wrong too, the costs of uninsured are passed to others if people don’t have health insurance unless we change the law forcing hospitals to provide care even when people can’t pay.
The mandatory part of Automobile insurance is ‘primarily’ for the protection of others, not one’s self. Forcing people to buy health insurance is much like the seat belt law – government meddling in the personal affairs of it’s citizens.
Yes, I have a problem with that. Now, sit up straight and don’t slouch.
Ms Paris
Automobile liability insurance is mandatory in most states at limits that are in most cases way too low. That said I have no issue with that as I choose to drive a car and for that choice I accept that I have to have liability coverage.
As to seatbelt laws I do have an issue with that, mind you I did say laws and not usage. I do not see anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights that the Government at the Federal, State or Local level has the right or responsibility to protect a competent adult from their own choices.
It is all about personal responsibility and choice which used to be important in our society, that is until the liberal nanny state came along.
How do you know that pre-existing conditions and black lung will not be covered? Give a Trump a chance instead of spouting factless data and statements.
Facts.. what a funny word when used in context with Donald Trump
You can keep your policy.
The cause of the uprising in Benghazi was a video on Youtube.
You can keep your doctor.
Premiums will decrease by an average of $2500.
etc.
What evidence do you have refuting the CIA in this since they said the same thing? Millions in wasted dollars of Republican witch hunts turned up nothing else, aside from a Republican giving up classified information about the weapons depot nearby.
Simply go to the first post on this topic which spouted factless data and statements.
DePolarBearables says:
It’s gonna be cut down by PresidenTrump faster than a decaying cherry tree. The repeal bill will be short enough so we can ALL READ IT BEFORE the Republican controlled Congress passes it.
Example: This Act does immediately and irrevocably repeal and nullify the Affordable Care Act. etc.
Nothing more than 2 or 3 pages are needed to clearly define the bill and misc. provisions that will be repealed, and the treatment of policies in force.
Got anything else stupid to say?
Chop! Chop! Chop! Chop!
TIMBERRRRRR!!!
DePolar, how about some humor and a true statement from one of our nation’s greatest hero’s?
“Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians”.
General George S. Patton
Brrrrfect humor selection for this chilly day.
Patton never said that. Do you have a source on that statement for further research, Agent?
Patton once said confused people are confused.
A couple links to support there’s no evidence that Patton actually said that. Do you have any evidence to the contrary Agent?
boards.straightdope
.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-725503.html
http://www.barrypopik
.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/politicians_are_the_lowest_form_of_life_on_earth/
It’s quite lovely that you fact check Agent’s odd comments that don’t matter, but how about you fact check planet and liberals here for once eh?
They are making some fairly bold claims and are trying to convert people based on them.
Those people are the bigger threat. Not some guy you believe isn’t quoting politicians correctly.
In what world is it more important to make sure people source quote correctly, over correct people who source quote to spread misinformation? I’m genuinely curious in which world you perceive the person who talks wrong someone you need to watch out for, and not the person misleading public at large in ways that can cause substantial policy differences in voting?
This is your millennial being an issue. You care more about PC topics than you do anything else. Work on it. Agent doesn’t have this weakness, and is clearly from possibly just younger to just older than the baby boomer generation. That age doesn’t engage in this bullcrap, and it’s a good thing.
Agent’s speech is a GOOD THING. What you’re doing isn’t.
I provided you the oceanic data by the way, and you didn’t reply. Go back to the site and check. The measurements have been different and the NOAA even admits that and says they try to compensate for it to reconcile different types of data into one chart. They are refusing to simply make a chart for each type. For example like the 2003 method I mentioned, and this is likely because when you use just that one, that one, as my source shows, displays dramatically less oceanic warming since 2003 than the government. Looking at the chart the the government seems to be projecting about a double as much change.
Why don’t you focus on better shaping arguments from people that are pretending they know oceanic data, yourself included?
It’s not MORE important, but posting lies and masquerading it as truth isn’t okay either.
Agent attacks me when I haven’t posted anything and blatantly lies about what I’ve said — I respond NOT by insulting him, but by calling out his bull#&@ when I see it.
UW/Planet/Ron – those guys have never done anything like that to me. They show me respect. They admit to their errors when I have pointed them out. They comprehend nuanced arguments.
And you may not believe it, but I call them out too. Not as much as Agent, I admit that, but that’s because Agent tries to pigeon-hole me into his little box and must be told the same thing dozens of times before he finally stops lying about it (for two examples: that I said ACA is a super-duper failure and I never cast a single vote for Obama)
And yeah, I saw your link in the other thread. The Breibart/RCS link you first sent me to prove NOAA’s readings may not be reliable was solely referencing Texas readings. The link you posted is the historical Arctic report – not historical Texas results.
How temperatures are recorded in, on and above the ocean and the factors used to “reconcile” the oceanic data is completely different from how temperatures are recorded and “reconciled” over land.
If your historical NOAA link discussed terrestrial readings and not aquatic ones, it would be relevant to the discussion that stemmed from your Breibart/RCS link that solely talked about adjusted terrestrial readings for Texas. It did not and I already brought this discrepancy to your attention.
I regret that I haven’t done enough to be called out by confused.
Where have I gone wrong?
White Knight Bob riding in to try to save Agent again & caring more about somebody checking his bullshit than about Agent’s lying. Fucking weird.
actu-lieber; please refrain from repeating your prior vulgarities. We’ve read them all before, hundreds of times.
“actu says:
White Knight Bob riding in to try to save Agent again & caring more about somebody checking his bull@%@# than about Agent’s lying. @%@ing weird.”
It’s weird that you care more about fact attacking agent based on whether or not he used a line to quote a politician, than you do caring about Agent.
Also, no one here is checking my BS. You haven’t given any data. What you mean to say is, that someone is trying to contradict my data, and to date, he himself said he could not extrapolate his own data when I asked him a question regarding it. He didn’t know whether the data showed the right temps or not, because he hadn’t digested it. Confused is not digesting data, he is repeating the conclusions of other agencies, and I might add, HALF the scientific community does not agree that catastrophic climate change is man made, or will be man made.
So when you say that people have to be stupid if they disagree with data on the issue, you’re being wildly disingenuous about the science, and then you attach a label to people who don’t listen to is and create attacks.
I stop those attacks, because as I said above, what is more important, that Agent says every aspect of what he believes, or Confused, who pretends he gave that information and gives a misleading conclusion, gets his own information in order?
I don’t think he needs to monitor what Agent says about small comments. There are bigger fish to fry.
As for confused, I’m not reading the response.
Too many of you have been insane. I’m going to make my point and that is all.
I’m not going to be in constant berating conversations over things like this. I did what I was meant to, morally, and now I’m finished. I made my point before, and that’s finished.
Knock it off ACTU.
“I might add, HALF the scientific community does not agree that catastrophic climate change is man made, or will be man made.”
I have to actually tie this together because I know how you will hit on this. I’m talking about oceanic temperatures right now, and above i mentioned that the government would be wrong, overestimating by about double if they used the 2003 measuring method. Then I said this, which is about climate change, a different issue.
The reason I mentioned this, is because we actually have polls regarding it, whereas we do not on oceanic temperatures. Not to nearly the same degree, but, the polls there show that the government is being wildly disingenuous to anyone that denies their over inflated numbers. This is becoming a method of attack and discrediting and grouping people, which again, is not surprising considering the democrat party was for a fact for slavery, and segregation more than the republican. Watch me while I say this is the evolution of class warfare they have tried to perfect over time. They do not care about minorities, they care about groups they can create and turn against each other.
So go tell that to the half of the scientific community that agree with, and use the numbers I am using. Instead of calling science people science deniers.
The sources I have quoted are all scientists themselves, even the ones with blogs, with the exception of one. And that one I even said myself was poor in the data but his concept seemed to be supported by others.
You can’t call me on B.S. that half the major science community agrees with.
Yes, I’m turning your own argument on it’s head. UW tells me I can’t call his stuff garbage because he claims 97% of scientists agree with it (though I showed it is 47% that agree man made warming can be catastrophic) so I can say that half of scientists agreeing with me shows that I’m not full of it.
It shows I disagree with the data, and I’ve digested that data and methods of measurement. You and UW have not.
bob wrote “I provided you [Confused] the oceanic data by the way, and you didn’t reply. Go back to the site and check.”
So I went back. I checked it. And then I replied here.
But now you say “As for confused, I’m not reading the response…I’m going to make my point and that is all.”
Sooooo, you tell me to reply to your link and when I do, your next comment is “I’m not reading the reply.”
How about don’t tell me to review reply to something it if you’re not going to bother reading the reply when I do so?
It’s like if I asked Agent to source something and when he posted his reply, I said “nope. i’m not going to read it.”
I doubt you’d let me “get away” with doing something as disingenuous as that, which is what you just pulled here.
Lying Bob changing his quotes again. I asked for a citation where I said the Cook paper addressed catastrophe. You obviously looked back and realized I didn’t say that, so now you change your story again and summarize me incorrectly and dishonestly again. Provide a citation where I said Cook et al addressed beliefs in catastrophe or admit you were wrong.
I’ve provided the link for you about a dozen times now.
Here’s the link. Quote, admit you were wrong or I’m done debating you.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/02/410761.htm/?comments
UW,
I got to the point of your post that said “lying bob” then ceased reading.
For all you think that Trump is not presidential, you certainly try to mimic his speech a lot, don’t you?
I’m not replying to your stupidity. Keep trying. I’m not reading it either.
There are no lies in my posts, and we aren’t talking while you keep saying as such.
You disagree, and you’re going to phrase it as such.
I have now compared Oceanic temperature weighing methods, and shown there are several, and none yet account for the ocean itself having a moving current, very few measure at the same depth, or keep track of varying depths in any consistent measure to see if those factors are the reason for variance, more importantly, many scientists have spoken on the margin of error when they merge all data, and found it is high enough in any direction on each of the methods of measure, that there could be some, huge amounts (as it only takes a few degrees to become a huge issue) or even none, in terms of warming. The very reason I took the debate with confused was that he was claiming darn near a 10 degrees Fahrenheit temperature switch as an average. That is completely insane.
You didn’t even know there was one done from 2003 to current, did you? And I source quoted the method.
Then when people show it, you discredit the scientist, say they are in the minority (so was Albert Einstein) and say anyone who doesn’t accept your science is a flat earther. Sound about right kiddo? That’s not how science and dissenting opinions work.
I have also digested and I’m the only person here who has done as such, the CRA laws compared to bank charters, and I’m sorry, I’m right regarding it.
I went over the convictions in colleges, guess what? You were wrong about the concept and you posted so quickly without thinking you were wrong that I had the wrong terminology. Because I’m not arrogant, I BELIEVED YOU at first. That’s what you don’t get. I even said something akin to “even if I used the wrong word it doesn’t matter”. And then you proceeded to tear me apart saying I don’t even know high school level crap, and words matter blah blah. That’s why I came back tearing you apart saying if you had looked it up, you would have known that, but you didn’t, and I was going to make sure you never lived it down.
There was the Iraq war spending you said wasn’t counted in the deficit. It was. It was under another name. I clearly said as such and you plainly said no, it’s not there, period. Then you said I misinterpreted you. No. I didn’t.
You are NOT researching properly, and this is more than just being slightly wrong, this is partisan behavior believing whatever the heck supports your narrative. These are only a few issues, and simply asking a few questions reveals how much of an idiot you are.
I don’t see a quote from me in there saying what you claim I said. I see you debating yourself, but no proof. Shut up , lying degenerate, or admit your were wrong.
It is insanely easy since I have provided the link a dozen times.
I’ll prove you wrong on the CRA again if you ever approach sanity but until you do and provide a quote or admission of error it is only what you deserve.
UW:
We have had several arguments on this, and you then finally called me a liar, when I said that my issue is that less than half of scientists believe that man made global warming is a major threat, but what I mean by this is that they are the driving factor. I should word this better so I will admit fault for that.
I told you, why would I even argue if that wasn’t what I was arguing about?
I then referenced your cook study, which does back up that less than half of scientists believe global warming is a a major threat.
I am not lying, this did occur, and cook et al does reference this.
Also, in this post you are looking into you quoted the Guardian among others, this is not where you linked the Cook et al study, which you have done in the past and it would take far too much effort to find. I provided a link already showing that Cook et al itself has buried within the evidence contradicting your conclusion of 97%, and it is going to take me a long time to find it again, for the same reasons as the NOAA. Everyone that presents it goes to the conclusion and a simple chart, they don’t present the data and source it, the Guardian certainly didn’t. I just tried to use that to find it, and it doesn’t have it. It doesn’t matter if I reference a blog, if that blog references scientific data. Discredit the data, not the source. You say all the time that you don’t discredit sources, prove it. Mention the data that was wrong.
On that note, this is one of many links I used showing less than half of climatologists agree with you.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
“Allow me to show the work since you won’t. Your link clearly narrowed who was considered a scientist, and did not mention what that number was, or what qualified as a climate scientist.” – Lying, pseudo-intellectual Bob trying to debunk the consensus found in the Cook et al paper.
“In UW’s source he tried to chain that over 90% of the people agreed with how they were represented but this is easily proven wrong.” – Lying Bob about the Cook et al paper, mis-summarizing my position, as always since he is fundamentally dishonest.
THEN, you lying, illiterate, pos, you ranted and asked about the level of catastrophe.
I did not, but, you continue to claim I did. Provide the quote or admit I did not claim the Cook paper said, as you have incorrectly been claiming for weeks.
You can’t, because I didn’t argue that, but you are too insane and disturbed to admit it.
Where
Is
The
Quote
Idiot?
You’ll never get a quote or get Bob to admit he was wrong. Look through his other threads: he is demanding sources and then freaking when people demand the same, he is blaming people when the data he cites doesn’t exist, he is misquoting people, he is arguing with himself saying things like “I know you will say” and then creating a fiction to cry about, he is cursing and insulting and then whining about language. He has completely lost it. He needs a psychological evaluation.
>In what world is it more important to make sure people source quote correctly, over correct people who source quote to spread misinformation?
Bona fide moron. Maybe that’s just my millenial being an issue.
>I have to actually tie this together because I know how you will hit on this. I’m talking about oceanic temperatures right now,
No you aren’t, liar. Your hot destroyed by Planet and UW on this and updated your training point to say it’s about the level of catastrophe and are clearly referring to the entire planet not just the ocean. Stop being a nut and apologize in the implosion above.
The drafts of alternatives for republicans has included pre-existing conditions as well as preventative care.
Get educated. I’ve posted these plans several times, and since then Ron has changed from there are no plans, to it wouldn’t cover pre existing conditions, to, if it covers pre existing conditions like the ACA without a mandate it therefore must increase in cost.
Do you guys ever long term track your statements or others who give you evidence? Do I really have to source quote these bills again?
Trump has already said he’s not getting rid of prexisting conditions, and that isn’t where the cost issue is with Obama’s bill.
In fact, if I’m not mistaken he smugly said he is looking forward to watching the republicans be wrong and costs go up when republicans include the high cost measures.
I don’t recall him saying that when the ACA was passed.
Didn’t you see the comments in the recent article about Black Lung? It’s bad, but largely due to smoking. They will NEVER realize they have voted against their own self-interests, they will just blame blacks, Mexicans, liberals, etc.
Cool!
Now those who voted for HilLIARy will find out what it means to put in an honest 8 to earn a wage, rather than sit in front of a TV and collect welfare checks and food stamps.
America will finally see EVERYONE who is ABLE TO WORK back at work, pulling a much smaller wagon of truly disabled people.
pre-existing conditions, black lung and other adverse selection issues are why it has been such a failure. Who in their right mind thinks that offering affordable care to the very sickest, most uninsurable was going to work ??
No one, that’s who.
It might have worked if they addressed the larger bucket of costs.
You need to remember you’re talking with liberals here. When I read this the first thing I get out of it is you don’t want to help the poor with such conditions. But you have to realize, they do have assistance. The poorest anyway, and I believe they do need and deserve help. A liberal would read your post, not know this (due to being low information voters) and get this out of it “I don’t want those darn poor people getting free coverage!” (which is what Ron, Actu, and UW get out of it, especially Ron)
But in regards to that: In the states where poor people cannot afford insurance, they will get coverage for these very same pre existing conditions. It just won’t be insurance coverage.
The only scenario I could see someone not getting coverage for this with state assistance would be if they are not low income, did not buy the proper insurance, and also made poor spending decisions which lead to them not being able to afford insurance.
While I do feel sorry for such people, it would be wildly disingenuous to imply that the poorest families cannot get coverage or state assistance. They most certainly can. The majority of cases in which someone cannot get some sort of care is extremely limited for one (As there are laws you have to be provided care for life threatening illnesses, you will get a bill and go bankrupt, but you will get care and there are very few loopholes for this), and for two, is not from people in the poorest sections of society.
We should focus on how best to help people as conservatives and force these guys to give up the moral high ground. Ron uses it on you two all the time.
“You need to remember you’re talking with liberals here.”
Says the supposedly moderate, non-partisan. Such a disgusting fucking hack.
Can’t provide quotes or read studies, only lie, lie, lie. Timothy McVeigh would be proud.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/05/4-in-custody-after-group-beats-disabled-man-on-facebook-live-while-shouting-anti-trump-profanities-chicago-police-say/
This is what happens when people think like you. That you need to attack stupidity, with vulgarities and mocking etc.
This is what happens when you say that a major politician or belief system is racist and bigoted.
People fight on that basis instead of facts. And that’s how you fight, you are no different. You have called me autistic, and I know if we were in an area debating and you knew no one would find out? You would inflict bodily harm on me. I don’t think it, I know it. In fact, I’m very confident you would be ok with my death, and believe it is needed for the greater good, with people who think like me. Ergo why you said I should be careful, because some people might think I’m so extreme I need to die.
You sound like an ISIS terrorist, you repeat mantras and phrases about the aggressors who need to be stopped.
If you are a moderate, explain to me what conservative ideals you agree with, or programs?
I listed three recently. Go ahead. Do it. Show me where you agree with republicans. I don’t mean this ethics garbage recently. I mean a program.
I know you can’t. Because you are bat sh@%@ crazy. I’m not partisan kid, you’re insane.
If you didn’t catch:
That means you are ok with hurting autistic stupid people.
That’s why I said it the way I did. They deserve it don’t they? They are Timothy McVeigh. I’m either stupid, or I’m Timothy Mcveigh, I can’t be both.
If I don’t know anything and can’t think right, I am not a psychopath, which they are known for being rather smart, it’s a bit of the cause of their downfall. See the point?
Once again Bob arguing with what he thinks liberals would say instead of what they are saying.
Now a conservative would see this and think we need to exterminate certain religions, because they are low information, but I disagree.
You are a despicable, sub-human, piece of trash Bob. This has little to nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with me. They were degenerate, gang members, and they were friends looking for notoriety. Fuck you.
You still haven’t provided the quote of me saying the Cook paper addressed catastrophe after saying for weeks you proved me wrong in that, and here you say I can’t debate with facts. Pseudo-intellectual clown, kiddo. You ignore every study posted, and as mentioned with your pathological lying about the Cook paper and debate consider lying a fact. You ignored facts on minimum wage, climate change, the Cook study, demographics and unemployment, and productivity, and more, every topic in fact. With every one of these you lied about reading the study or said you wouldn’t read it, and then claimed to be all about facts. Don’t even get started on your stupid Bob Math which NEVER adds up, and which you abandoned after being crushed, kiddo. I’ve also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you don’t know basic statistics, therefore, by definition, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to analyze data as you claim to do. Degenerare, perverted, liar.
Fuck you. I’ve never said anything wishing you personal harm, even after you THREATENED ME WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. You constantly create fictions in your head about what other people would do or probably think, and then treat them as facts. I have compared you philosophy to McVeigh because as I showed, your rhetoric is just like his, including your perverted desire for a civil war-more violence from you.
You STILL have not provided a quote about what you incorrectly claimed I said about the Cook study, and your severe mental problems keep you from admitting your were wrong. Garbage both intellectually and morally.
You are a full-blown, insane, pathological lying, piece of shit and I am done with you because you cannot operate in reality, cannot provide a simple quote verifying what you lied and attacked me with, and are too insane to ever admit you are wrong in anything of consequence. I asked if your wete autistic because I suspected you were and was going to lay off certain, severe personality problems you have, but it turns out you are just pure garbage, horrifically unintelligent, and mentally unsound. Fuck off, psycho.
Nobody should reply to you anymore, you are a mentally unstable person in a meltdown.
Agree, Bob.
I’m seeing/ hearing some good ideas lately, including fixing the high risk pools that were once used but were dropped/ stopped by ACA… I’m a little fuzzy on that issue.
There are some clever minds working on SOLVING the problems rather than TAXING people to pay overly-expensive costs. Tort reform ideas have been novel compared to past approaches used back in the day when bed pan mutuals arose.
ACA repeal is an easy 1st step. The replacement isn’t going to be one bill or one step… too many things are intertwined in the health care and health insurance industries to fix with a couple ‘tricks’. But if people see the multiple steps, they’ll gain some comfort with, and confidence in, the people who will soon be in charge.
Agreed. I’m worried even with republican fixes and Trump fixes.
It’s going to take a lot of guesstimates even from the clever to try and bring down costs.
Chicken Little…..
The guys not even in office and is having a positive impact on Jobs. One way to make things affordable is to get all able bodied Americans back to full employment.
IBM. Carrier. Ford. Either scrapping moving plans or hiring more AMERICANS. Yea, they get tax breaks so we take less refugees and can the foreign aid to those Mid East countries that hate us.
Stock Market rolling right along.
Relations with Russia can only get better as they cant get mush worse. But then again, Obama is still in office, so maybe they can.
So, all you Chicken Little folks… Stay tunes. Focus on the positive.
FFA, interesting that the IJ is still publishing positive stories about the worst legislation ever passed and on the brink of being repealed and replaced due to its well publicized failures. Kind of tells you where IJ lines up on the Progressive agenda, right?
By the way, how bout them Cowboys? Are those kids good or what? Looks like they and the Patriots are the two best in the league, but upsets can happen in the playoffs.
Hey Agent,
You still eating at this place?
http://www.iwaspoisoned.com/tag/chick-fil-a/
Watch out, sounds like they are having some issues with salmonella outbreak. Must not just be Chipotle that is serving up trump trousers, huh?
Patticake
Hey Agent,
You still eating at this place?
http://www.iwaspoisoned.com/tag/chick-fil-a/
Watch out, sounds like they are having some issues with salmonella outbreak. Must not just be Chipotle that is serving up trump trousers, huh?
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/chick-fil-a-chemicals-msg-1610.html
Patticake
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/chick-fil-a-chemicals-msg-1610.html
“Filth” Closes First NYC Chick-Fil-A Outlet
January 4, 2016 News, Religion
Update below. Gothamist reports:
New York City’s first towering Chick-Fil-A has hit a stumbling block in its plans for domination of the city’s fast food fried chicken landscape. A Christmas Eve inspection by the Department of Health uncovered a host of critical violations, resulting in 59 violation points, squarely in C territory. On December 30th, the restaurant closed its doors, indicating it would reopen for breakfast on January 4th.
The five critical violations included food held at improper temperatures and food not cooled by an approved method. Filth flies, food not protected from possible contamination and soiled wiping cloths were also cited. A previously ungraded inspection earlier in the month returned with 39 violation points, indicating things got worse—not better—between the two inspections
@CapTroll Asteroid; please do your orbitting in another galaxy. We’re trying to have polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversations and debates here on IJ.
Yogi,
If you are trying to have a polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversation, you are failing miserably.
Only failing up to this point because of YOU.
Typical Donald Trump supporter, just blame someone else for your own failures.
Review the posts to see who is(are) the one(s) trash talking and spewing vulgarities.
“Typical Donald Trump supporter, just blame someone else for your own failures.”
A typical Ron comment.
The typical Trump supporter is a lot more like me, and libertarian in nature. I have seen I am not alone in my thoughts.
You choose some conservatives here to focus on that meet some of your preconceived notions.
Work on it.
@Ron; WHO is discussing Chick-fil-a when the topic of the article is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act?
The answer to that question will lead you to the reason for my comment above.
IF you can’t stay on topic, or close to it, stay out of the comments section.
Chic Fil A is absolutely related to healthcare as it’s making people sick, Yogi. I’m just trying to warn all my friends out here.
Do you want me to point every time you post something not related to the topic?
You would not fair too well if I did.
Besides, there are plenty of off-topic posts in the comments from nearly everybody, including me.
@Ron; yes, please point out every instance where I veer from the topic and REPEATEDLY STAY OFF COURSE. I will make a late resolution to fix that problem if you find MULTIPLE OFF TOPIC POSTS IN CONSECUTIVE ORDER.
Patticake
Chic Fil A is absolutely related to healthcare as it’s making people sick, Yogi. I’m just trying to warn all my friends out here.
“The typical Trump supporter is a lot more like me, and libertarian in nature”
Libertarians don’t support and justify the State torturing, even when innocent, discrimination based on religion, exporting based on race, even when they are citizens, attacking protesters, an authoritarian leader with a private security force, tariffs on trade, manipulating currency, outlawing marriage for gay people based on the Bible and what you feel is best, and on and on.
Not wanting to pay taxes doesn’t make you libertarian, idiot. Please shut up, stop posting, or learn the absolute basics about what you talk about.
I don’t see your quote about catastrophe yet, what a shock. Liar or wrong?
Patticake
Yogi,
If you are trying to have a polite, adult, informative, and meaningful conversation, you are failing miserably.
Patticake
“Filth” Closes First NYC Chick-Fil-A Outlet
January 4, 2016 News, Religion
Update below. Gothamist reports:
New York City’s first towering Chick-Fil-A has hit a stumbling block in its plans for domination of the city’s fast food fried chicken landscape. A Christmas Eve inspection by the Department of Health uncovered a host of critical violations, resulting in 59 violation points, squarely in C territory. On December 30th, the restaurant closed its doors, indicating it would reopen for breakfast on January 4th.
The five critical violations included food held at improper temperatures and food not cooled by an approved method. Filth flies, food not protected from possible contamination and soiled wiping cloths were also cited. A previously ungraded inspection earlier in the month returned with 39 violation points, indicating things got worse—not better—between the two inspections
Hi Agent. Hope all is well. I look forward to the play offs with the last spot being determined by the last game (GB & Detroit). I would expect a Dallas vs NE SB. Rookies vs the ageless Vets. Setting up to be a good one if it happens.
Anyways, regarding the article Not as bad as past years, but still bad isnt really a positive endorsement of the worst law ever passed. A call to recall is how I read it.
FFA, Detroit looked good for a half and scored 21. They got no more after Dallas defensive adjustments and Stafford was running for his life every series. He is a good quarterback with a great arm, but sometimes he is a bit too proud of it and makes mistakes. I kind of think he will look good at home when GB comes calling. GB seems to rely on Hail Mary’s to win like they did with the Bears who really had them on the ropes. My prediction is Detroit by 3, but I could be wrong.
I like Da Bears. Obviously.
Life Long Bear Fan myself…. I still can name every starter from 85.
From what I saw, the new QB looked pretty sharp at times. Had receivers not been dropping balls at the rate they were, they may have won a few more games.
They really got pounded by injuries which is a sign of poor conditioning.
Ouch! 38-10 isn’t a good sign for the near future.
The important thing to remember is that football sucks, they play for about 11 minutes over a 3+ hour stretch, and it is popular because it is easy for dumb people to follow.
Insulting hard working people’s recreation activities?! We expect more over the next 8 years.
You forgot to use the usual ‘deplorable’ or ‘reprehensible’.
How far can you throw a football? A baseball? How long can you throw a hissy fit over the election results? I’ll bet the latter is the longest you can do.
DePolar, a few on this blog need to take advantage of DeBlasio’s free counseling sessions to get over their grief of losing. They are the sorest of losers.
Perhaps they can attend an Al Gore lecture on how to be a gracious loser?
Or, maybe not.
UW- …..and even dumber people to comment on. I’m going to guess that you don’t have a clue what happens on a football field. I’ll also guess that you don’t have a social life……or friends……
Jax, Congratulations to your Jaguars for the last game. After the coaching change, it looked like they played with more energy. Hopefully, the draft will be good and the team more competitive next year.
Jax, your first sentence is not written in proper English. Please try again so it is comprehensible, and in the future try not to make major errors in a sentence criticizing intelligence. Maybe you meant yourself, since you too are commenting on football?
UW…I wish that you would talk to us and tell us just where all of your anger comes from…are you this angry every day? It must be so exhausting for you…turn that frown upside down!!! You’ll better much better off for it!!
Says the person who has never made a comment that wasn’t about somebody or a slur.
Patticake = Trollicake
@actu-lieber; please find another cesspool website to spin your trash talk. This one is going to be cleaned up by IJ administration like it was a Super Fund site.
Hey FFA,
Quick question for you. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to support a guy who calls people names like Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and Little Marco and then berate me for calling Drumpf for what he actually is? Don’t you think it’s ironic you say my professional demeanor has sunk, but yet you support a guy who talks about his Little Donnie on a political stage, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has stated he would “date” his own daughter if he could, has admitted to watching under-aged girl contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant, has admitted to watching legal age contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant (against their will), and has been named in multiple lawsuits alleging he had sexual interactions with minors? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this President-Elect has done a phenomenal job of highlighting the hypocrisy that lives and pretty much breeds within today’s Republican Party.
@CapTroll Asteroid: The same could be said about a person who sabotaged Bernie with the help of the DNC, and called half of her opponents deplorable, reprehensible and irredeemable.
Further, and worse, she exposed our country’s national security details and top secret information, to try to hide what an incredible failure she is, by attempting and failing to keep her communications secret. Then she started LYING about it, REPEATEDLY and without shame, after being caught exposing top secret info and being caught LYING.
Yogi,
I don’t know how many times I need to write it for you to comprehend it, but I am not a Hillary fan. These are the 2 worst candidates of all time. And, they both ran horrible campaigns. Now we have a con artist for a President. A fraud. A horrible person. He is our President, but he is a most unethical one. I am so old, I remember when we didn’t like candidates supported by Russia, the KKK, and ISIS.
For more fun, Google “TrumPutin”.
Planet has hope after all. What do you know.
He then goes over the top as usual, but what I see here is that he’s finding it difficult to say things about Trump. A con artist, fraud, horrible person, and unethical. None of it linked to data, and then the only data he has here, vindicates Trump. A sign the guy is starting to see data doesn’t support his labels.
Also, Russia does not support Trump in any substantial way. They hated Hillary as a lesser of two evils just like you, and they saw a double opportunity by supporting Trump:
Getting people paranoid about Trump. It shuts down the American public entirely. Also, Assange has never been a supporter of any government, and he has said several times, his sources are not Russian government folks.
He may be under Russian protection, but if you know the history of Assange, you will know this guy hates governments.
censorship
Yogi,
I don’t know how many times I need to write it for you to comprehend it, but I am not a Hillary fan. These are the 2 worst candidates of all time. And, they both ran horrible campaigns. Now we have a con artist for a President. A fraud. A horrible person. He is our President, but he is a most unethical one. I am so old, I remember when we didn’t like candidates supported by Russia, the KKK, and ISIS.
Cap,
I thought the guy was a complete joke and am stunned he actually survived the primaries. I remember laughing at the TV when he announced. I looked at my roomie at the time and said no way!
Kaish or Walker would have been better then either.
When we first crossed paths and for several years to follow, you never engaged in name calling. I dont agree with all your positions, but at least you didnt sound like you belong on a middle school play ground.
I only have names for this orange guy because I think it should be understood who this person is. Some of his supporters, heck I’d venture to say most, do not know he was named in a child raping lawsuit. Most don’t know he talked about peeping out underage girls at the Miss USA Teen Pageant. Most don’t know who this guy is but they voted for him anyhow. I’m simply calling him for who he is. The words I use about him are true.
I’m with you, I liked Kasich. Can’t agree about Walker, though. Too many ties to the Koch’s. He was their “golden boy”.
censorship
I only have names for this orange guy because I think it should be understood who this person is. Some of his supporters, heck I’d venture to say most, do not know he was named in a child raping lawsuit. Most don’t know he talked about peeping out underage girls at the Miss USA Teen Pageant. Most don’t know who this guy is but they voted for him anyhow. I’m simply calling him for who he is. The words I use about him are true.
I’m with you, I liked Kasich. Can’t agree about Walker, though. Too many ties to the Koch’s. He was their “golden boy”.
censorship
Hey FFA,
Quick question for you. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to support a guy who calls people names like Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and Little Marco and then berate me for calling Drumpf for what he actually is? Don’t you think it’s ironic you say my professional demeanor has sunk, but yet you support a guy who talks about his Little Donnie on a political stage, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has stated he would “date” his own daughter if he could, has admitted to watching under-aged girl contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant, has admitted to watching legal age contestants undress at the Miss USA Pageant (against their will), and has been named in multiple lawsuits alleging he had sexual interactions with minors? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this President-Elect has done a phenomenal job of highlighting the hypocrisy that lives and pretty much breeds within today’s Republican Party.
17 more days until our LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE ends and Trump begins to MAGA.
16 more days until OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE ends and PresidenTrump starts MAGA.
Just out of curiosity, since President Trump will make America great again, we can assume it is currently not, but was once great. Please tell us how far back President Trump will take us to make us great again and for whom will it be great?
It will not take us BACKWARD.
It will remove us from the destructive tentacles of Socialism.
It may take us to a situation where LBJ’s social engineering failures are replaced or repaired significantly so that future generations will have OPTIONS as to how to fund their retirement and other aspects of their lives according to the personal freedoms were are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Fair enough.
Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.
Socialized retirement and health programs.
SSec will eventually be replaced by 401k type plans in the control of PRIVATE financial firms.
Same thing for ACA being replaced by privately administered by private insurers.
“Fair enough.
Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.”
A comment you arrogantly make because you yourself don’t understand the steps to socialism, and the more you say this the more it shows you are willing to allow bad actions, especially when you say this:
“So, if rights are taken away from a segment of the population, inflation increases, the wealth gap increases more, and/or the economy goes into a recession it is because of brainwashing?”
So then, you want to engage in regulations to eliminate the wealth gap? Could that be why you agree with targeted tax programs based on wealth to redistribute through social programs, and then you insist those aren’t forms of socialism because the state doesn’t control production? What if they took 80%, and redistribute it, would it still not be socialism to you? Or would it be not bad because it isn’t socialism? What would the spin be?
You have the weaknesses of a young kid on these issues, and the people you mock who are decrying socialism are the fix, whereas you are the leak allowing these issues with how the system runs.
A leak that needs to be fixed.
By the by:
Currently when we combine local federal and state, we spend about 40% of GDP on social programs.
My question is: When have we spent too much?
The pay inequality gap must exist due to how many people can be rich, you cannot eliminate it when you don’t even understand it. If we are spending 40% of the GDP on social programs by default the poor already get their pay, plus 40% of GDP on programs. That constitutes a majority of the GDP available being dedicated to them.
It is wildly disingenuous to imply that they receive too little currently, and it is very truthful to say we have too many programs that are wasteful, or that they receive too much given this number. Otherwise, I must believe that the economy simply cannot work. That’s the only other conclusion, as we can do the math on that one and come to that clearly based on how much left there is to give. At that point, the best way of handling this is making the economy able to pass around and create pie, not to have the government take pies.
Go make pies and sell them. Does it help anyone that then a third of your pie in addition must be taxed?
Bob,
I was responding to TrumPolarBear’s comment that there are tentacles of Socialism in place. I want to know what those are and if he evens knows what is Socialism.
I would think that someone as intelligent and educated as you would want people to use terms correctly, not some twisted, rhetorical definition.
Once again, you totally missed my point. I was only listing a few things I expect to see over the course of the next 4 years that would make America less great for some people. If they do not come to fruition, I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong.
You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader.
TrumPolarBear,
All of those programs have existed through several administrations of both parties, including President Reagan. If you think they will be eliminated, you are far more naive that I already imagined.
“It will not take us BACKWARD.
It will remove us from the destructive tentacles of Socialism.”
Whenever a conservative says something remotely similar to this, and the clear social engineering and social programs the left supports have sustainability issues, by your own admission, to then reply this:
“Please list the tentacles of Socialism that will be removed. Hint: Regulations are not Socialism.”
Is not only ignorant, it is immoral. Like a snot nosed brat you have preemptively accused him of thinking like a child and that you have it figured out. Not only have you accused him of thinking like a child, you have accused him of doing so by choice to protect partisan party and to go after Obama.
It is harmful. You’re going to reply I do the same. This is your same old cyclical crud. But the root of it is you. And you refuse to acknowledge that.
However, with myself, I just here (albeit in a nice way) told a conservative who I thought might be going into the “poor people shouldn’t get help” field, what being conservative is: Focusing on how best to help people, and correcting people regarding how programs work. Before the ACA people didn’t just die without insurance.
And I have it below for you to read. I don’t just accept crud people say on any political spectrum, and I don’t focus on being a jerk know it all when someone says a phrase that I have labeled as bad. If you cannot handle or do not understand what a conservative means when they say that, and you must then discredit them, you are immoral. You could just see through it like I do, and get to their actual point, but you would rather focus on making something the point, because you want so badly to believe that is what republicans believe, facts be damned (literally, that’s not just an expression here, it applies. You want republicans to believe things facts be damned so you can call them low information voters with bad reading comprehension.).
“You need to remember you’re talking with liberals here. When I read this the first thing I get out of it is you don’t want to help the poor with such conditions. But you have to realize, they do have assistance. The poorest anyway, and I believe they do need and deserve help. A liberal would read your post, not know this (due to being low information voters) and get this out of it “I don’t want those darn poor people getting free coverage!” (which is what Ron, Actu, and UW get out of it, especially Ron)
But in regards to that: In the states where poor people cannot afford insurance, they will get coverage for these very same pre existing conditions. It just won’t be insurance coverage.
The only scenario I could see someone not getting coverage for this with state assistance would be if they are not low income, did not buy the proper insurance, and also made poor spending decisions which lead to them not being able to afford insurance.
While I do feel sorry for such people, it would be wildly disingenuous to imply that the poorest families cannot get coverage or state assistance. They most certainly can. The majority of cases in which someone cannot get some sort of care is extremely limited for one (As there are laws you have to be provided care for life threatening illnesses, you will get a bill and go bankrupt, but you will get care and there are very few loopholes for this), and for two, is not from people in the poorest sections of society.
We should focus on how best to help people as conservatives and force these guys to give up the moral high ground. Ron uses it on you two all the time.”
“Bob,
I was responding to TrumPolarBear’s comment that there are tentacles of Socialism in place. I want to know what those are and if he evens knows what is Socialism.”
I quoted that, so I’m well aware. And he’s right. We are heading toward that, and social programs are definitely being put in place that lead towards unsustainable social programs and away from private ones to handle people’s needs.
“I would think that someone as intelligent and educated as you would want people to use terms correctly, not some twisted, rhetorical definition.”
I don’t take your twisting, you’re the one doing it. You should understand fully what he means, and should focus on the problem. Not people’s phrasing. You told me you want to focus on the problem, now it’s phrasing you do?
“Once again, you totally missed my point. I was only listing a few things I expect to see over the course of the next 4 years that would make America less great for some people. If they do not come to fruition, I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong.”
What? Simplify your comment…
“You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader.”
Ah yes, this again. No. I don’t. Revoke that comment. What you just put above made little sense and you didn’t clarify well enough. We are posting online. There are always misinterpretations based on multiple ways of reading things. If you do not refrain from this typical arrogant crud, you will get the brunt force of my intellect as you have seen before, you don’t fare very well. I know you’re smart enough to realize how much you were humiliated in the healthcare debates. If you want me to start debating with the goal of proving you stupid, continue. I will easily prove you stupid. You’re not a challenge there, get over it.
Focus on what you know, focus on proper debate. Don’t over extend yourself.
I will also add I make a point of saying when I agree with someone. And just recently it extended to both Planet, and UW.
Have either of these two done this with me?
UW was mostly right on his recent comment. I would even say 90% right. Where he messed it up was then trying to link it to Bush W and say Obama had nothing to do with it, and then said the Deltas must by default vindicate Obama.
That is something I don’t tolerate without evidence. I would need to see something Obama did to slow it.
Clearly something had to have triggered it, and by default Bush W has to get blame for it. But I’m more interested in stopping it. If Obama did something we need to know, in order to mimic it. And if no one has, we need to know, so we know we need to do something.
But more on point, I said it was 100% accurate that immigration had nothing to do with it, and I condemned anyone who said as such.
I then also said that however, to then use false equivalency to say anyone who brings up immigration issues must be the same as that, is, as I like saying lately, wildly disingenuous.
I am willing to agree on many areas, but most people here are unwilling to say they are wrong.
And no, I’m not equal here. Just recently I told confused I was wrong and was over reacting.
It’s about time people here talked with the intention of criticizing, and accepting criticism too.
Here’s two examples….
Soc Sec was a safety net Social program to fund retirement income. 401ks can easily replace them, and be much more efficient than the US Govt can ever be. Time will be needed to wean young people away from Social Security and onto pensions ( a rebirth! ) and Tax Deferred Retirement plans such as 401k’s IRAs, etc.
LBJ (“Lock Box”) Johnson raided the Soc Sec lockbox to fund his two social engineering programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Republican Representative Helger(sp?) tried to restore the lock box and force return of the borrowing in 1999, but he was filibustered by Democrats. So, the lock box is still open for Obama and other Dems to raid for social engineering programs. But thee PAYGO schemes are known to be ponzi schemes that are due to fail when there are too many people being paid and not enough people to pay.
The same concept of saving for retirement through PRIVATELY administered IRAs, 401ks, pensions, with tax deferral, can be applied via Health Savings Accounts to health insurance and health care expenses. That is the theory behind the Republican’s plan nucleus. Details are ahead, after agreement and number crunching provides alternatives for the committees to disuss and agree upon for an HSA bill.
Sorry about the awkward wording in the PAYGO sentence.
And ‘discuss’, not ‘disuss’ in the last paragraph.
It will make everyone great again, except those who are brainwashed into accepting Socialism or Communism. Those latter types will be given the opportunity of their lifetime, but I fear some may be so brainwashed that they will continue to protest and fight against MAGA.
So, if rights are taken away from a segment of the population, inflation increases, the wealth gap increases more, and/or the economy goes into a recession it is because of brainwashing?
One other thing, is removing ethics from Congress part of making America great again?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/03/house-gop-votes-to-gut-independent-ethics-office.html
Right on, Ron. And, they voted on that behind closed doors in the middle of the night. I’m so old, I remember when conservatives complained about decisions being made in secret rooms in the red-eyed hours. I’m sure guys like Yogi and Agent will be consistent and speak out against that action.
In the spirit of being a man of my word, I will applaud Drumpf for calling out the GOP for making it a priority to remove the independent ethics office.
I 2nd that, Captain Planet. Kudos to President-elect Trump.
Also, thanks to President-elect trump, Ford has cancelled plans to invest and expand in Mexico, will invest $700 million here and create 700 more union jobs. Of course, we cannot forget the 28,000 union jobs Ford created over the past 5 years under a different president, who shall remain nameless.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/ford-700-jobs-trump/index.html
I also commend Trump for speaking out against the vote to shut down the independent ethics committee and forcing change.
I just hope Agent sees these posts and doesn’t try to argue we never give Trump any accolades and only post negative things about him.
There is NO RIGHT to health care, so give up trying to lie about it. You can’t fool me; I’m smarter than the average polar bear!
Fake news about Republicans removing ethics committee is floating around today.
Wait for the TRUTH about what they intended to do before all the mis-information came out, purveyed by the Liberal Main Stream Media to discredit Republicans and cast them as evil and corrupt.
Trump has access to more information than we do, and he said ‘they…weaken[ed] the Independent Ethics Watchdog.’
Should we not believe what Trump said about it? After all, he’s not part of the Liberal Main Stream Media, right?
“I 2nd that, Captain Planet. Kudos to President-elect Trump.
Also, thanks to President-elect trump, Ford has cancelled plans to invest and expand in Mexico, will invest $700 million here and create 700 more union jobs. Of course, we cannot forget the 28,000 union jobs Ford created over the past 5 years under a different president, who shall remain nameless.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/ford-700-jobs-trump/index.html”
Union jobs are not a superior way of handling jobs when you can simply make a conducive environment that would save them and not have a cost of upkeep, in addition to a political mess of hierarchy maintaining it that can become insanely corrupt. The less layers the better. Obama is not getting credit for keeping jobs here, I’m sorry Ron. I won’t allow it.
You are using false equivalency again.
Obama has failed, and I will see you say it.
Bob,
You said, “Union jobs are not a superior way of handling jobs when you can simply make a conducive environment that would save them and not have a cost of upkeep, in addition to a political mess of hierarchy maintaining it that can become insanely corrupt.” If that is true, why is President-elect Trump so willing to accept credit for saving and creating all of these union jobs? Either you are wrong or he should be criticizing Ford and Carrier. I’ll let you tell me which.
You said, “Obama is not getting credit for keeping jobs here, I’m sorry Ron. I won’t allow it.” Please quote me where I gave him credit.
You said, “Obama has failed, and I will see you say it.” No you will not, because he has not.
President Obama has only failed in your eyes because you expected him to turn our country to Socialism. However, we are no closer to that now than we were in 2008.
It really is OK to admit that the economy has actually improved since he took office. It may have improved as much as you and I would have liked, but it did improve.
I have discovered the problem. All you care about is giving credit and dishing out blame, where all I care about are results.
Also, why must you make so many false assumptions regarding my intent?
“President Obama has only failed in your eyes because you expected him to turn our country to Socialism. However, we are no closer to that now than we were in 2008.”
Incorrect. And the only reason you said this was to steer away from my points and instead attack an ideal. Also, we have socialized programs. Healthcare is now being taxed and paid for to be shifted to the poor, instead of using the state funds we already had, and making a conducive environment for the middle class to get coverage. See my comment above to Agent on this, regarding medical care. We have moved toward social programs more than private under Obama. And that’s not the reason I say he’s bad for jobs. I say it because he is, and because what you just said regarding Unions creates a hierarchy of aholes reliant on pay in order to get other people pay, instead of making a system that works, and reduces the amount that people in the company can get. Unions have upkeep and costs. Trump doesn’t. When he keeps jobs he kept them more efficiently. Unions are responsible for jobs leaving, by the by, due to the cost of unions and other nations not requiring them. See our trade deals. We basically loosened labor laws. You clearly don’t know much on this. That’s why democrats tend to say they were bad, that they loosened labor laws, and republicans agree on other aspects that I won’t go into, it takes more than a cliche idealistic line that you have labeled a group of people as believing.
“It really is OK to admit that the economy has actually improved since he took office. It may have improved as much as you and I would have liked, but it did improve.”
No. It didn’t. Not any bit due to him, and less than it should have. He slowed the recovery. End of story. He inflated housing costs and printed money and artificially lowered the interest on his own deficits.
“I have discovered the problem. All you care about is giving credit and dishing out blame, where all I care about are results.”
What is the problem and what is the fix? I do not care about blame, I care about showing the data and not saying plans work that don’t. I care about focusing on what PLANS people pushed. Not this horse crap. You’re the one who cares about blaming all equally. And again, this is not related to the topic at hand. You’re ranting and labeling character, not concept.
“Also, why must you make so many false assumptions regarding my intent?”
You don’t even know your intent. And you keep on doing this. I label what you’re doing, because it’s what you do. It’s why you kids all think alike, unlike other sections of adults. You’re not more mature than me, you’re much less so, and I am unlike your other 30 year olds. Whereas you are completely like the 24-34 age group, of which I know for a fact you are part. It’s easy to spot how you were targeted, and you’re clueless as to what a pawn you are. I might be so bold here as to say you’re as old as my brother, you sound like the same rough indoctrination level.
He’s 29. His wife is 27. You sound more on her side than on his as he grows up, and given you are a Catholic just like them, these norms should follow suit in your behavior. Are you 25-27? How did I know that Ron? I’m going to be so bold as to make this prediction with me saying it is at least 70% accurate.
The only thing that confuses me on your age is you sound more like his wife who is younger which makes me push you younger than I would normally say.
This might be a maturity issue though. If I’m wrong and you are my brother’s actual age, 27-29, it means you are abnormally immature and should work on it. You’re still in the younger demographic and it’s obvious.
Now on the topic at hand:
Obama’s union jobs are not a good thing, and as a whole his economic production has been poor.
Having jobs added without a union is better than pushing unions as the only solution while saying the carrier jobs would leave no matter what (guess what, they didn’t, and it was a simple fix).
censorship
Right on, Ron. And, they voted on that behind closed doors in the middle of the night. I’m so old, I remember when conservatives complained about decisions being made in secret rooms in the red-eyed hours. I’m sure guys like Yogi and Agent will be consistent and speak out against that action.
censorship
In the spirit of being a man of my word, I will applaud Drumpf for calling out the GOP for making it a priority to remove the independent ethics office.
Ron, Tic Tac Popping, Incest-Curious Trump only complained that it looked bad, not that he had a problem with what they did to the office.
“Just out of curiosity, since President Trump will make America great again, we can assume it is currently not, but was once great. Please tell us how far back President Trump will take us to make us great again and for whom will it be great?”
During the build up from Reagan’s tenure into the dot com boom, would be one.
But the biggest aspect that makes America great is being destroyed right now.
The youth does not question. They follow. Over 80% supported Bernie, and they did so because they are definitely less afraid of socialism, and many of them have clearly been indoctrinated.
In order for America to be great, a few things need to be true:
You need to not trust all of government. Not just one side.
This includes gun ownership. The youth trusts cops more than they do the public with owning guns. It’s a bad sign, and it shows America is not great. That America, were it run by the youth right now, would be ok with doing away with many rights, putting in place real socialism (and yes, college grads right now support socialism more than capitalism, actual socialism) and rights of free speech would be taken away (hate speech being supported as a serious issue on campuses is out of control) and all of this is very much so linked with democrats and Obama.
What will make America great again?
Thinkers. People who question. People who are paranoid, and people who are not even remotely open to socialism. A move back toward religious principles in the U.S. A move toward knowing that birth control to fix your bad sexual decisions doesn’t work. Avoiding pregnancy isn’t the issue, avoiding bad dating decisions is (not of person, but to have sex before marriage, yes I said it, dopamine production does get harmed with each break up, and watch me while I say THIS is the reason kids are failing more than their parents).
A return to common sense, moral fiber, responsibility, etc..
That will make America great again.
Good, succinct, factual post!
15 more days until OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE ends.
Less than 4 years and 15 more days until WE (fsociety) hack the election. Russian aPROVEDit. #takeUSAback
Hmm, Megyn Kelly is leaving Faux News. Smart girl, sounds like she finally wants to be taken credibly.
I’m SURE you wouldn’t or didn’t say that about her when she was in her current role.
There is nothing wrong with Fox News. There is something wrong with you.
I’m not sure, but it seems like a network news anchor shouldn’t be on a New Year eve show getting drunk and acting foolishly.
Guess which network had such a situation a few days ago.
Hint: it wasn’t Fox.
Hint#2: It is often called ‘Clinton News Network’ by those who choose to mock it’s pro-Dem / liberal bias.
I’ll watch any of them, and they all have their bad eggs.
I quote New York Times against themselves all the time, and I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan).
I love doing that. Fox news does contradict themselves though as well. They all have strengths and advantages.
I will give CNN some credit for being all over conservatives. We should do that.
We should just also be all over liberals.
I don’t trust any of them, even though I constantly call republicans better, I really would not trust any of them with my kid’s futures. Not one. Not even the supposedly religiously devout, and in fact, I don’t even care about that since it is so often faked and used by both parties (Biden Catholic and Ryan Catholic was no coincidence in 2012.)
“I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan)”
No you stupid, illiterate dolt, is because you use an article from 1981 aa evidence of his whole term, which went beyond 81,and because in reality the budget he was against was because he wanted more spending.
Where is my Cook quote, liar or wrong?
“Uw says:
“I think that’s why UW finally even himself doesn’t accept my New York Times links (like with regards to Reagan)”
No you stupid, illiterate dolt, is because you use an article from 1981 aa evidence of his whole term, which went beyond 81,and because in reality the budget he was against was because he wanted more spending.
Where is my Cook quote, liar or wrong?”
I know how to read you dumb fuck. Don’t call me an illiterate dolt. Those were his proposals, and I also gave a CBO link showing further proposed cuts. The plan that passed was a bill sponsored by a democrat. The CBO plan showed that his spending halted automatic increases from Carter by the way.
You can’t simply say that they don’t count, it is ignorant, and you never once showed a plan that showed Reagan proposed spending increases. You tried to imply defense increases, but again, I showed a link that even though Reagan expanded military expenditures and created a new division, military spending were offset by other cuts for the most part, as you can see in this chart by the percentage of GDP military spending.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
See the spikes and dips?
And you have very incorrectly tried to imply that was the source of his deficits. You’re wrong. You’re also wrong that he didn’t propose spending cuts. Want to prove me wrong? Show me a CBO rated bill, or anything, showing a proposal from Reagan to increase spending of our primary programs (Social security, medicare, non mandatory spending, etc). If you can’t, shut up. I already showed you are clueless on deficits when you actually tried to argue that the Iraq war spending was not included in Bush W’s deficits, after I said that if you include the Iraq War spending, it’s amazing that Bush W only had one year of what would be considered worse than normal deficits, and it was during a recession. I said this proves his tax cuts were not horrible and did not cause the deficits we are now having constantly. Your reply was that he caused deficits by hiding the cost of the Iraq war and that Obama now has to pay for it. The war was on the books, for the full over trillion dollars of spending it incurred during Bush W’s tenure. You were wrong there.
Now then, back up your claim that Reagan increased spending, and stop telling me “that was just one year dolt, he was in office for 8” I also showed a CBO plan for 1982, dolt, not just 1981. That’s 2. You need to show increases proposed. Think you can do it, dolt?
On the Cook quote: If you noticed what you referenced never showed the study. It was obviously another conversation when I finally said your cook study backed up my study. This was because before then, none of your links had the source data. As you can see, check that link and that site you gave me. NONE of your source links gave the cook et al data, and now NEITHER of us can find, so you couldn’t have possibly reviewed it at the time. Now you are asking me where in the data is agrees with my other link that you ignored, (which it does, it says 50%) but I could just as easily ask where in your data is the evidence for your 97% comment? Because your link doesn’t show it! It shows a conclusion from Guardian, whereas my blogs, all of them but two, showed the reference data, and one of the two the link was simply broken because it became too old and the link was changed.
My link above proves that less than half of climatologists agree that mankind is the primary driver behind climate change.
Instead of then going “oh, that’s credible” you instead are now focused on calling me a liar, going after my credibility, and refuse to focus on the data. The only reason I am calling you out on cook, is because you have for MONTHS said I’m not reviewing my data. It is retaliation you ignoramus.
My link is solid for the climatologists that disagree. I also focus on this because you have claimed that only people who deny science disagree with the government’s commentary on it. That is a lie. Half the community disagrees with it, the oceanic data from 2003 onward doesn’t match up with what the NOAA has tried to combine from 4 different measurement methods with hundreds of differences in the measuring locations, to consolidate into one chart to go back 100 years, there are misleading aspects the government is doing all the time, and instead of calling that out, you want to call the people who are sane, science deniers? Go tell that to the 53% of scientists who say disagree with your agenda.
>On the Cook quote: If you noticed what you referenced never showed the study. It was obviously another conversation when I finally said your cook study backed up my study.
Lmao. Same thing you always do and have done with me and Confused. You say the study isn’t valid and then claim you can’t find the study. I just looked in the thread UW is writing about and you are crazy as usual. You link a blog with 100 other blogs against the Cook study but claim there is no source data. The name of the study is the source data dummy. It’s a major study and can be found easily, buuuut, you can’t debunk it if you can’t find it, so you are full of shit either way, as always. Your Reagan obsession is as weird as your Agent one. I may have missed it, but I bet you never provided the Bush dollars for the Obama years of the Iraq War either.
Why are you such a fucking nut? I looked through that thread for “catastrophe” and no hits came up except in your rants, you are obviously wrong. Just asmit it, you lose the little credibility you have left by doing this. The guy you cite in that thread is a hardcore Christian explaining away climate change with God. You are fucking clueless. You are crazy with 3 to 4 people now and getting embarrassed in each one, but think you are winning a debate somewhere. Grow up kido
You go insane and start demanding people tell you where they work! You’ve lost it man. Where do you work, maybe it biases you since they obviously support nutters
I don’t know why anyone listens to you with your attempts to attack based on affiliation.
Do you know what you just said? Let’s take the definition and break what you said down. And for you, you mean it like this. I’m not breaking out the word to try and play the “you didn’t use the right word!” and to say you are clueless. No. I’m saying you full well knew and know, and you are a corrupt worthless human for what you implied here.
” 1.
capable of being believed; believable:
a credible statement.
2.
worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:”
That is the definition.
Can you please explain why she can only be taken credibly if she is not with Fox News? You labeled her as a human before hand? So suddenly she herself will be worthy of belief, and trust worthy if she works at for example CNN?
You have made her owned by the company who employs her, how liberal of you.
Well, Planet, I don’t know if I can believe you. Tell me who you work for.
I believe they might be causing you to not be trust worthy.
Who are your friends?
Who do you know?
I believe that you must be lying since you know liberals.
AMIRITE?