Another example Jim, of you making one point and at the same time reinforcing the other!
The perfect quote - political in nature
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
Another example Jim, of you making one point and at the same time reinforcing the other!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Mark, Tim,
Once again I will repeat, All one sided, polorizing media, pretending to be news but just spreading bullshit are wrong. MSNBC is wrong, Fox is wrong, Bill Maher is wrong. Its causing an incredable devide that is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!
The differance is no one here believes MSNBC, no one here believes Bill Maher, no one posts MSNBC lies (except Mr Fechter), no one posted Bill Maher lies (except you).
What we get here is post after post of Bullshit from Fox. Lies, half truths and distortions.
Right up to the night of the election, Fox told you that Romney would win in a landslide, Fox told you that Republicans would take back the Senate, Fox told you that Republicans would increase their hold on the House.
In post after post you brought those lies here and repeated them, over and over. Obviously you believed them!
Mark, Tim, was any of that true?
Romney did not win, did he? Obama won the Electoral College in a landslide 332 to 206.
Republicans did not take the Senate did they? In fact they lost seats.
Republicans did not increase there house seats did they? In fact they lost seats.
Not one conservative here in our site even mentioned this. No one condemed this obvoius miss use of the airwaves, no one condemned this lie, NOT ONE!
You are still watching their bullshit, repeating their bullshit and defending their bullshit.
What is wrong with you?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc"]
0:19
[/ame]
This is still the perfect quote-political in nature.
Once again I will repeat, All one sided, polorizing media, pretending to be news but just spreading bullshit are wrong. MSNBC is wrong, Fox is wrong, Bill Maher is wrong. Its causing an incredable devide that is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!
The differance is no one here believes MSNBC, no one here believes Bill Maher, no one posts MSNBC lies (except Mr Fechter), no one posted Bill Maher lies (except you).
What we get here is post after post of Bullshit from Fox. Lies, half truths and distortions.
Right up to the night of the election, Fox told you that Romney would win in a landslide, Fox told you that Republicans would take back the Senate, Fox told you that Republicans would increase their hold on the House.
In post after post you brought those lies here and repeated them, over and over. Obviously you believed them!
Mark, Tim, was any of that true?
Romney did not win, did he? Obama won the Electoral College in a landslide 332 to 206.
Republicans did not take the Senate did they? In fact they lost seats.
Republicans did not increase there house seats did they? In fact they lost seats.
Not one conservative here in our site even mentioned this. No one condemed this obvoius miss use of the airwaves, no one condemned this lie, NOT ONE!
You are still watching their bullshit, repeating their bullshit and defending their bullshit.
What is wrong with you?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc"]
This is still the perfect quote-political in nature.
Last edited:
Jim,
Since when is an incorrect prediction a lie?
As far as I am concerned, the media (all of them) will tell you whatever they think will get you to watch their shows through the commercials, or click on their websites to harvest your click-stream data and sell it..
There was an old saying that I should add to another popular thread here:
You know how to tell if a politician is lieing?
Their lips are moving!
Same holds true for the media...
So what are we doing here.. Arguing about who's the better liar that won? Tell me/us that everything O says is/was the truth... I hardly think so.. Romney any better? Heck no, but I still think he was the better qualified of the two to hold the office of President.
Since when is an incorrect prediction a lie?
As far as I am concerned, the media (all of them) will tell you whatever they think will get you to watch their shows through the commercials, or click on their websites to harvest your click-stream data and sell it..
There was an old saying that I should add to another popular thread here:
You know how to tell if a politician is lieing?
Their lips are moving!
Same holds true for the media...
So what are we doing here.. Arguing about who's the better liar that won? Tell me/us that everything O says is/was the truth... I hardly think so.. Romney any better? Heck no, but I still think he was the better qualified of the two to hold the office of President.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Randy,
Virtually all honest, fair, polls showed Obama winning big. That turns what you call a prediction into a lie. When you claim to be a news service and ignore "news" that you do not like, That is also a lie. When you say that Romney is going to win when you know he is not, that is also a lie.
*************
Fox Nation Admonishes Their Faithful: Don’t Believe The Poll
As Mitt Romney sinks further into an abyss of electoral sludge, his Pharisees at Fox News dispense divine guidance to their disciples. The word from on high at Fox Nation is: “Don’t Believe the Polls.”
It is true that most of the recent polls show President Obama widening his lead over Romney. Even the polls from Fox News report Obama ahead by significant margins. That news is triggering a severe case of paranoia resulting in a defensive overreaction on the part of Romney’s PR team (aka Fox News).
So Fox found an article on The Hill and linked to it with a headline of their own making. The actual source was nothing more than a report on the comments by Romney’s pollster Neil Newhouse, who just happened to disagree with all the polls showing Romney behind. But Fox, in their headline, failed to attribute that opinion to a Romney operative. Newhouse, it should be noted, is the adviser who declared that “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” To his credit, the campaign has kept that promise.
This admonition to cast out the demon polls is typical of the behavior of a cult where the first sacred lesson is to accept that anything told you by anyone outside the order is a lie. Therefore, all the pollsters are agents of the unholy and must be shunned. Never mind that all of these same pollsters were once embraced by the Foxists as prophets:
Virtually all honest, fair, polls showed Obama winning big. That turns what you call a prediction into a lie. When you claim to be a news service and ignore "news" that you do not like, That is also a lie. When you say that Romney is going to win when you know he is not, that is also a lie.
*************
Fox Nation Admonishes Their Faithful: Don’t Believe The Poll
As Mitt Romney sinks further into an abyss of electoral sludge, his Pharisees at Fox News dispense divine guidance to their disciples. The word from on high at Fox Nation is: “Don’t Believe the Polls.”
It is true that most of the recent polls show President Obama widening his lead over Romney. Even the polls from Fox News report Obama ahead by significant margins. That news is triggering a severe case of paranoia resulting in a defensive overreaction on the part of Romney’s PR team (aka Fox News).
So Fox found an article on The Hill and linked to it with a headline of their own making. The actual source was nothing more than a report on the comments by Romney’s pollster Neil Newhouse, who just happened to disagree with all the polls showing Romney behind. But Fox, in their headline, failed to attribute that opinion to a Romney operative. Newhouse, it should be noted, is the adviser who declared that “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” To his credit, the campaign has kept that promise.
This admonition to cast out the demon polls is typical of the behavior of a cult where the first sacred lesson is to accept that anything told you by anyone outside the order is a lie. Therefore, all the pollsters are agents of the unholy and must be shunned. Never mind that all of these same pollsters were once embraced by the Foxists as prophets:
Last edited:
Watch out, Randy, you get craik any madder and he'll start demanding you put up your last name. LOL :~)
Nice try Jim but I don't recall spouting any Fox talking points.
You are falling into a dangerous trap that is being fed to you by the media. If you dehumanize or devalue your opponent it makes justifying your actions to them so much easier.
But when does the money run out? I have only a simple understanding of liquidity in that you should only write a promissory note if it's covered by an asset with intrinsic value i.e. gold - that's the theory anyway. But that all stopped 2 World wars ago. In theory the actual gold money ran out/down, I dunno, years ago didn't?
These sums owed now are so huge, nothing surely could ever be paid back ever?
Anyway moving on, I had to Wiki this as this word seems to have many meanings. But it does remain one of the most often used derogatory terms in use on this forum by certain people.
I hate the word as it impugns one's integrity. Why would anyone tell a deliberate untruth on a forum like this? I mean there's no gain as such is there.
The word of course is LIE
And this is the closest I could get to my own understanding of the word, but there's of course misinformation, hyperbole etc which I suppose are watered down versions.
"To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the truth or the whole truth, intentionally."
I'd like to think no-one has ever LIED to me on this forum, and certainly I have never knowingly lied to anyone else either. I have been mistaken maybe, but not lied. Why would you?
Anyway, it's a nasty word, and like sleeping dogs it should be left to, er, lie.
These sums owed now are so huge, nothing surely could ever be paid back ever?
Anyway moving on, I had to Wiki this as this word seems to have many meanings. But it does remain one of the most often used derogatory terms in use on this forum by certain people.
I hate the word as it impugns one's integrity. Why would anyone tell a deliberate untruth on a forum like this? I mean there's no gain as such is there.
The word of course is LIE
And this is the closest I could get to my own understanding of the word, but there's of course misinformation, hyperbole etc which I suppose are watered down versions.
"To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the truth or the whole truth, intentionally."
I'd like to think no-one has ever LIED to me on this forum, and certainly I have never knowingly lied to anyone else either. I have been mistaken maybe, but not lied. Why would you?
Anyway, it's a nasty word, and like sleeping dogs it should be left to, er, lie.
Ahh, but the money doesn't have to run out. Your creditors only have to lose faith in your ability to pay it back.
That's what happened in Greece. They never actually defaulted on their debt. And they're a classic example of why socialism doesn't work.
So, when we have 16 Trillion in debt and a president who started another social program (Obamacare) after adding 6 Trillion to the debt you have to wonder. This is after LBJ's "Great Society" war on poverty programs. BTW, the poverty rate now is about the same as it was before those programs were enacted and they now encompass roughly 42% of our annual budget.
But hey, liberals are smarter so I'm sure they'll find a way to pay it all back right?
That's what happened in Greece. They never actually defaulted on their debt. And they're a classic example of why socialism doesn't work.
So, when we have 16 Trillion in debt and a president who started another social program (Obamacare) after adding 6 Trillion to the debt you have to wonder. This is after LBJ's "Great Society" war on poverty programs. BTW, the poverty rate now is about the same as it was before those programs were enacted and they now encompass roughly 42% of our annual budget.
But hey, liberals are smarter so I'm sure they'll find a way to pay it all back right?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Steve,
For various reasons our econony has slowed, when it comes back and it is comming back, the debt will be paid down. This has happened before. Our debt to GDP has been much worse than it is now.
Most expets say that Obama Care will actually save us in the long run. You do know that we allready are paying for everyone? When the uninsured go to the hospital, they are not turned away, we are paying for them. Having everone covered will actuall be a huge improvement.
Steve, you seem to be blaming the debt on liberals, look at the chart. Since 1981, virtually all the upward movement in the chart were during or immediatly after the Conservative leadership of Reagan and Bush!!!
CHART: U.S. Debt To GDP 1940-2015
For various reasons our econony has slowed, when it comes back and it is comming back, the debt will be paid down. This has happened before. Our debt to GDP has been much worse than it is now.
Most expets say that Obama Care will actually save us in the long run. You do know that we allready are paying for everyone? When the uninsured go to the hospital, they are not turned away, we are paying for them. Having everone covered will actuall be a huge improvement.
Steve, you seem to be blaming the debt on liberals, look at the chart. Since 1981, virtually all the upward movement in the chart were during or immediatly after the Conservative leadership of Reagan and Bush!!!
CHART: U.S. Debt To GDP 1940-2015
Last edited:
Jim,
You can clearly see that the debt to GDP was only high right after WWII, then the war debt was rapidly paid down and we were in an economic boom. We are far from that now and while we are technically no longer in a recession, we are far from coming out of anything.
The ratio went up in Reagans later years and continued up until Clinton's 2nd term, where it largely was held in check by increased revenues from a booming economy (nothing related to anything Clinton did). The rise since 2008 is scary as we have no well to go to for increasing revenue. I think Bush's spending was deplorable and Medicare part D was an expense we couldn't afford so I'm not blaming just liberals. It's only liberals who are certain raising taxes without entitlement reform first is appropriate. This is a spending problem, not a lack of revenue problem. The federal govt has been spending beyond it's means for decades. They're addicted to it (both parties to some extent) like heroin. It's disingenous to approach the American people to ask for more without showing fiscal restraint first.
You're completely wrong about healthcare: I'm an MD, I'm the only industry that is mandated by law to work for free. When I do, I don't recoup my cost from other patients or 3rd party payors. I eat it and live with it. Period.
You think Obamacare will save money? It would be the first entitlement in our country's history that would save the society any money. In 1965, when Medicare came out, the actuarialists did 25 year projections (as the do every year). They predicted in 1965 that Medicare would be a $9Billion/year program. In 1990, it was actually $67 Billion (now it's around $600 Billion). They were off by over 750%. That was a liberal program passed by a liberal president with the help of a liberal congress. Sound familiar (Obamacare). Yeah, it'll come in on budget and "save money". Yeah right.
You can clearly see that the debt to GDP was only high right after WWII, then the war debt was rapidly paid down and we were in an economic boom. We are far from that now and while we are technically no longer in a recession, we are far from coming out of anything.
The ratio went up in Reagans later years and continued up until Clinton's 2nd term, where it largely was held in check by increased revenues from a booming economy (nothing related to anything Clinton did). The rise since 2008 is scary as we have no well to go to for increasing revenue. I think Bush's spending was deplorable and Medicare part D was an expense we couldn't afford so I'm not blaming just liberals. It's only liberals who are certain raising taxes without entitlement reform first is appropriate. This is a spending problem, not a lack of revenue problem. The federal govt has been spending beyond it's means for decades. They're addicted to it (both parties to some extent) like heroin. It's disingenous to approach the American people to ask for more without showing fiscal restraint first.
You're completely wrong about healthcare: I'm an MD, I'm the only industry that is mandated by law to work for free. When I do, I don't recoup my cost from other patients or 3rd party payors. I eat it and live with it. Period.
You think Obamacare will save money? It would be the first entitlement in our country's history that would save the society any money. In 1965, when Medicare came out, the actuarialists did 25 year projections (as the do every year). They predicted in 1965 that Medicare would be a $9Billion/year program. In 1990, it was actually $67 Billion (now it's around $600 Billion). They were off by over 750%. That was a liberal program passed by a liberal president with the help of a liberal congress. Sound familiar (Obamacare). Yeah, it'll come in on budget and "save money". Yeah right.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Steve,
That's a well thought out answer, thanks.
A agree with much of your description of the economy. But you do know that the Depression/WWII debt was repaid by a top tax rate more that twice today's rate. Additionally, all things being equal, Reagan/Bush cutting taxes and increasing spending was not really the best way to handle debt?
So Doc, you are saying you dont recoup uninsured costs from other patents. So tell me, if suddenly all the uninsured stopped showing up at hospitals, my healthcare costs would not change?
That's a well thought out answer, thanks.
A agree with much of your description of the economy. But you do know that the Depression/WWII debt was repaid by a top tax rate more that twice today's rate. Additionally, all things being equal, Reagan/Bush cutting taxes and increasing spending was not really the best way to handle debt?
So Doc, you are saying you dont recoup uninsured costs from other patents. So tell me, if suddenly all the uninsured stopped showing up at hospitals, my healthcare costs would not change?
Most hospitals receive local govt (county state or city) funding to cover some of the costs of the uninsured. In general, this is best left to local govts/state govts as they know better for their populace. In Iowa, for instance, the University of Iowa sends out vans every day to pick up indigent patients and bring them to the U for their care. The state pays a paltry fee for this. On a national level, it is too cumbersome and expensive. While hospitals are subsidized, physicians are not. We often work for free on patients (who still reserve the right to sue for a poor outcome).
Your healthcare costs will continue to go up until the American public learn to be conscientious consumers of healthcare. They are not because Medicare/Medicaid as well as employer-sponsered 3rd party payors (who's growth has been fueled in part by the federal govt) give people the illusion that they're not paying for their care. That's false.
The tax rates after the war were very high, but the potential deductions were equally high. Cutting taxes was fine, increasing spending not so much. I already stated Bush spent too much and Medicare part D will be way over budget, even after it's been revised upwards several times.
All previous president's debt combined, however, pales in comparison to what Obama has racked up in just 4 years. At least Reagan and Bush gave some lip service to cutting spending. Obama doesn't even try.
Your healthcare costs will continue to go up until the American public learn to be conscientious consumers of healthcare. They are not because Medicare/Medicaid as well as employer-sponsered 3rd party payors (who's growth has been fueled in part by the federal govt) give people the illusion that they're not paying for their care. That's false.
The tax rates after the war were very high, but the potential deductions were equally high. Cutting taxes was fine, increasing spending not so much. I already stated Bush spent too much and Medicare part D will be way over budget, even after it's been revised upwards several times.
All previous president's debt combined, however, pales in comparison to what Obama has racked up in just 4 years. At least Reagan and Bush gave some lip service to cutting spending. Obama doesn't even try.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Steve,
Help me out here, I'm fairly sure that I am already paying for the health care of the uninsured, either through my Health Care Provider, State, Fed, or County taxes.
You say that is not true?
Once again, are you saying that if all the uninsured folks suddenly stopped going to see doctors, that my overall Health Care costs would not go down?
To say that you just eat the cost of the uninsured seems disingenuous to me. You make up the differance, how?
In my line of work, occasionally I do not get paid, but that is factored into my fees. You do not do this?
*******************
Now to the debt, you seem to be saying that Obama has raised Government spending at a higher rate than previous presidents, so tell me why do I keep seeing things like this?
Its not that he has greatly raised spending, its that the revenue has gone way down.
Revenue is the problem, just look at the graphs, cutting taxes creats debt, increasing taxes lowers the debt.
The revenue taken in from taxes is not thrown away, it is all spent in the economy, the Military, Schools, health care and yes debt service.
Help me out here, I'm fairly sure that I am already paying for the health care of the uninsured, either through my Health Care Provider, State, Fed, or County taxes.
You say that is not true?
Once again, are you saying that if all the uninsured folks suddenly stopped going to see doctors, that my overall Health Care costs would not go down?
To say that you just eat the cost of the uninsured seems disingenuous to me. You make up the differance, how?
In my line of work, occasionally I do not get paid, but that is factored into my fees. You do not do this?
*******************
Now to the debt, you seem to be saying that Obama has raised Government spending at a higher rate than previous presidents, so tell me why do I keep seeing things like this?
Its not that he has greatly raised spending, its that the revenue has gone way down.
Revenue is the problem, just look at the graphs, cutting taxes creats debt, increasing taxes lowers the debt.
The revenue taken in from taxes is not thrown away, it is all spent in the economy, the Military, Schools, health care and yes debt service.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Like I said, this is much more a revenue problem than a spending problem. Look at this chart (Government revenue), the high points in this chart are just before Reagan and BushII lowered taxes.
That my friend is where the debt comes from. There are only so many things the Government can cut. If revenue had remained as it was when Reagan became president we would not be in this mess.
You then said this: "At least Reagan and Bush gave some lip service to cutting spending". Since when did lip service pay for anything. Are you really saying that talking about cutting spending while doing just the opposite is to be admired???????
Your earlier posts led me to believe you were fairly sharp, don't let me down with talk like that
Do you notice how the revenue chart and the debt chart are almost reverse images.
That my friend is where the debt comes from. There are only so many things the Government can cut. If revenue had remained as it was when Reagan became president we would not be in this mess.
You then said this: "At least Reagan and Bush gave some lip service to cutting spending". Since when did lip service pay for anything. Are you really saying that talking about cutting spending while doing just the opposite is to be admired???????
Your earlier posts led me to believe you were fairly sharp, don't let me down with talk like that
Do you notice how the revenue chart and the debt chart are almost reverse images.
Last edited:
