10.65 BILLION..

12357

Comments

  • pdalowsky
    pdalowsky Doncaster,UK Posts: 15,234
    Funny, you think a 50 mile commute is long? That's really nothing. I'd even say that's quite common here.

    How much do you put in your car each month? I think you'll get quite a shock how it compares

    Gob wrote:
    pdalowsky wrote:
    If petrol got to 4.40 $ a gallon in the Uk there would he street parties.

    I laughed this week when I saw Obama getting all bent out of shape at the price of gas in the states..... It's piss cheap....
    Yeah, and how big is England? About the size of Minnesota?

    I have to ask, how long is you average commute there? Weren't most of the streets designed before automobiles?

    The US is full of suburban sprawls. It's very easy to have a 50+ mile round trip daily commute in the Chicago area..

    And you guys SHOULD be bitching too.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    Gob wrote:
    pdalowsky wrote:
    If petrol got to 4.40 $ a gallon in the Uk there would he street parties.

    I laughed this week when I saw Obama getting all bent out of shape at the price of gas in the states..... It's piss cheap....
    Yeah, and how big is England? About the size of Minnesota?

    I have to ask, how long is you average commute there? Weren't most of the streets designed before automobiles?

    The US is full of suburban sprawls. It's very easy to have a 50+ mile round trip daily commute in the Chicago area..

    And you guys SHOULD be bitching too.

    Did you ever notice how people from the suburbs of Chicago claim Chicago is where they live, but someone from the suburbs of Detroit makes it very clear that they "live outside of Detroit". I always think "you don't live in Chicago, you live in the crap-hole of Schaumburg". They just went full bore on the sprawl, and I don't know if they're any plans to reign it in. People don't bat an eye at 45min to an hour drive to pretty much do anything.
  • Black73
    Black73 Posts: 1,018
    Aaron 23 wrote:
    Thank you for making my point. I don't see where we disagree, and I think you have me painted as someone that has issues with G.E., Apple, etc. I have zero issues with G.E., Apple... .

    For some articles on G.E., I resort to the mainly leftist New York Times:...

    ^ the above, I admit, is somewhat outdated (published in 2007, but off of data collected a decade ago) but gives an idea of my point with pollution. G.E. has also undergone recent scrutiny for their heel dragging when in has come to the cleanup of the Hudson River, and I believe there have been a few western coal incidents recently.
    Thanks for clarifying, although I didn't think you hated big corps. I cordially request that if you throw out company stats, either disclose in your initial post that the data is from 2002, or include recent stats. Lots of impressionable people out there who will take the leftist NY Times (another point where you and I agree!) word as gospel. A very quick search showed me that the EPA is speaking positively as recently as March for GEs Hudson River cleanup...I'm more inclined to believe what they have on their website than a newspaper writer trying to make her/his mark.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Sorry, there is no "cultural crisis" as a result of liberal policies, and to say there is, is putting minimal thought into problems in the U.S. Also, people avoiding responsibility isn't anything new. It's been happening since humans have been able to make choices.

    There certainly is a culture crisis in this country. The election of someone like Obama is the biggest sign. Certainly some people have always avoided responsibility, but not at the levels we have now. Having a few free loaders is normal, but the current levels are due to the policies of the left. Look at the expansion of liberal entitlements and social programs in the last 50+ years. It's ridiculous how many people are dependant on the government these days.
  • McNairn
    McNairn Posts: 284
    From one Canadian's perspective:
    Republicans in the US = religious pandering for votes, not good fiscal management.
    Also the right does not spend any less money - they just spend it on different things like war instead of schools and social programs.
    You could argue spending money you dont have is wrong regardless but if it is a choice between Obama and Bush / Cheney / McCain / Palin / Trump, you should count yourselves lucky to have Obama.

    In Canada we have three basic parties- Conservative (Republican), Liberal (Democrat), and left "socialist" (who have never really been in power)- but there is virtually no pandering by anyone to organized religion - which seems normal and right for us. In Canada a leader could actually say they dont go to church or are an athiest and still get elected - it would not be an issue. They could also say they "did inhale" and still get elected.

    The debate in the US seems always to be clouded by this issue so you can't just vote for one party which has good fiscal management, vs the other that doesnt.

    Religion needs to be completely separated from govenment - that is step one.

    just an opinion from an outsider.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    McNairn wrote:
    From one Canadian's perspective:
    Republicans in the US = religious pandering for votes, not good fiscal management.
    Also the right does not spend any less money - they just spend it on different things like war instead of schools and social programs.
    You could argue spending money you dont have is wrong regardless but if it is a choice between Obama and Bush / Cheney / McCain / Palin / Trump, you should count yourselves lucky to have Obama.

    In Canada we have three basic parties- Conservative (Republican), Liberal (Democrat), and left "socialist" (who have never really been in power)- but there is virtually no pandering by anyone to organized religion - which seems normal and right for us. In Canada a leader could actually say they dont go to church or are an athiest and still get elected - it would not be an issue. They could also say they "did inhale" and still get elected.

    The debate in the US seems always to be clouded by this issue so you can't just vote for one party which has good fiscal management, vs the other that doesnt.

    Religion needs to be completely separated from govenment - that is step one.

    just an opinion from an outsider.

    No offense, I would say your opinion is pretty far from reality. That's OK though, I have no idea what goes on in Canada either.
  • McNairn
    McNairn Posts: 284
    I can accept that!
    I dont claim to know what I am talking about-
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Sorry, there is no "cultural crisis" as a result of liberal policies, and to say there is, is putting minimal thought into problems in the U.S. Also, people avoiding responsibility isn't anything new. It's been happening since humans have been able to make choices.

    There certainly is a culture crisis in this country. The election of someone like Obama is the biggest sign. Certainly some people have always avoided responsibility, but not at the levels we have now. Having a few free loaders is normal, but the current levels are due to the policies of the left. Look at the expansion of liberal entitlements and social programs in the last 50+ years. It's ridiculous how many people are dependant on the government these days.

    You're making a conclusion that there is a cultural crisis based on some anecdotal evidence. A crisis implies that something horrible is happening that requires change. Some people avoiding responsibility is not a crisis. You're making a statement without any evidence whatsoever. In order to measure the level of irresponsible people, you'd have to come up with a measurement device and gather scientific data, which no one has done. It would be too hard anyway, to have a valid measurement of it. I assume you mean people on welfare are the "free loaders" in your post. Numbers prove your conclusion incorrect, as the rate of people on welfare has dropped significantly since the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. Maybe you're referring to all the old timers on Medicare and Social Security? Blaming the problems in the U.S. on liberal policies is an easy out and brings relief to conservatives. It seems to be quite a popular thing on the internets, too.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    MG79478 wrote:
    McNairn wrote:
    From one Canadian's perspective:
    Republicans in the US = religious pandering for votes, not good fiscal management.
    Also the right does not spend any less money - they just spend it on different things like war instead of schools and social programs.
    You could argue spending money you dont have is wrong regardless but if it is a choice between Obama and Bush / Cheney / McCain / Palin / Trump, you should count yourselves lucky to have Obama.

    In Canada we have three basic parties- Conservative (Republican), Liberal (Democrat), and left "socialist" (who have never really been in power)- but there is virtually no pandering by anyone to organized religion - which seems normal and right for us. In Canada a leader could actually say they dont go to church or are an athiest and still get elected - it would not be an issue. They could also say they "did inhale" and still get elected.

    The debate in the US seems always to be clouded by this issue so you can't just vote for one party which has good fiscal management, vs the other that doesnt.

    Religion needs to be completely separated from govenment - that is step one.

    just an opinion from an outsider.

    No offense, I would say your opinion is pretty far from reality. That's OK though, I have no idea what goes on in Canada either.

    Actually, his opinion is pretty close. Conservatives deficit spend with the best of them, and if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected, let alone if they said they were an atheist. They have to be in a mainline Christian church and state a belief in God.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Go Beavers wrote:
    You're making a conclusion that there is a cultural crisis based on some anecdotal evidence. A crisis implies that something horrible is happening that requires change. Some people avoiding responsibility is not a crisis. You're making a statement without any evidence whatsoever. In order to measure the level of irresponsible people, you'd have to come up with a measurement device and gather scientific data, which no one has done. It would be too hard anyway, to have a valid measurement of it. I assume you mean people on welfare are the "free loaders" in your post. Numbers prove your conclusion incorrect, as the rate of people on welfare has dropped significantly since the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. Maybe you're referring to all the old timers on Medicare and Social Security? Blaming the problems in the U.S. on liberal policies is an easy out and brings relief to conservatives. It seems to be quite a popular thing on the internets, too.

    Oh yeah, there is no evidence. This country is headed in a great direction! There is nothing horrible happening right now. All is well, all is well, all is well!

    There is a measure of irresponsible people, and it is those that are dependant on the government for something they could provide for themselves. You can't really think that the number of people dependant on the government is currently at a good level? Every sane person knows that too many people are dependant on the government for too many things they could provide for themselves. So I have 2 options here:

    1) Provide no data, watch you spout twisted CNN garbage, and not change your mind. Waste very little time.
    2) Provide data, which scares you off, and still doesn’t change your mind. Waste more of my time, which as a conservative and thus a producer in our society, is very precious.

    This board is notorious for people just running from discussions once their touch feely mainstream media liberal stance is shattered. If I had a tax refund for every time that happened to me, I would still be paying way too much in taxes!
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Actually, his opinion is pretty close. Conservatives deficit spend with the best of them, and if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected, let alone if they said they were an atheist. They have to be in a mainline Christian church and state a belief in God.

    Please read posts before you feel the need to respond. I agree that conservatives still spend too much, just nothing like the level that Obama has been spending. I guess no candidate could ever get elected with their religion in doubt. There is absolutely no one who thinks Obama is a muslim. I mean not one single damn person. Let alone the upwards of 60% reported some places.
  • 81
    81 Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
    Released1980 wrote:
    2 years.. I use shell E85.
    Like thats much better. :oops:

    :lol:

    you do realize that gas from multiple refiners gets all mixed together? you might be buying shell, but that shell station very likely has gas produced from oil that exxon or BP pumped?
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    You're making a conclusion that there is a cultural crisis based on some anecdotal evidence. A crisis implies that something horrible is happening that requires change. Some people avoiding responsibility is not a crisis. You're making a statement without any evidence whatsoever. In order to measure the level of irresponsible people, you'd have to come up with a measurement device and gather scientific data, which no one has done. It would be too hard anyway, to have a valid measurement of it. I assume you mean people on welfare are the "free loaders" in your post. Numbers prove your conclusion incorrect, as the rate of people on welfare has dropped significantly since the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. Maybe you're referring to all the old timers on Medicare and Social Security? Blaming the problems in the U.S. on liberal policies is an easy out and brings relief to conservatives. It seems to be quite a popular thing on the internets, too.

    Oh yeah, there is no evidence. This country is headed in a great direction! There is nothing horrible happening right now. All is well, all is well, all is well!

    There is a measure of irresponsible people, and it is those that are dependant on the government for something they could provide for themselves. You can't really think that the number of people dependant on the government is currently at a good level? Every sane person knows that too many people are dependant on the government for too many things they could provide for themselves. So I have 2 options here:

    1) Provide no data, watch you spout twisted CNN garbage, and not change your mind. Waste very little time.
    2) Provide data, which scares you off, and still doesn’t change your mind. Waste more of my time, which as a conservative and thus a producer in our society, is very precious.

    This board is notorious for people just running from discussions once their touch feely mainstream media liberal stance is shattered. If I had a tax refund for every time that happened to me, I would still be paying way too much in taxes!
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Actually, his opinion is pretty close. Conservatives deficit spend with the best of them, and if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected, let alone if they said they were an atheist. They have to be in a mainline Christian church and state a belief in God.

    Please read posts before you feel the need to respond. I agree that conservatives still spend too much, just nothing like the level that Obama has been spending. I guess no candidate could ever get elected with their religion in doubt. There is absolutely no one who thinks Obama is a muslim. I mean not one single damn person. Let alone the upwards of 60% reported some places.

    This board may be notorious for people bailing, but you wont "scare me off". If you want to try and shatter my liberal stance, go ahead. Your response reveals where your information comes from. Mine comes from more than CNN. I didn't say the number of people receiving any public assistance was good or bad. You said we were in a cultural crisis. I said we are not based on the number of people on welfare being much lower in the last 15 years or so. That's not "twisted CNN garbage" and you have no data to support your stance of a "cultural crisis". I'm aware of problems in our country, I just don't call something a "crisis" when it isn't. I don't say that things are worse when the data show opposite.

    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Go Beavers wrote:
    This board may be notorious for people bailing, but you wont "scare me off". If you want to try and shatter my liberal stance, go ahead. Your response reveals where your information comes from. Mine comes from more than CNN. I didn't say the number of people receiving any public assistance was good or bad. You said we were in a cultural crisis. I said we are not based on the number of people on welfare being much lower in the last 15 years or so. That's not "twisted CNN garbage" and you have no data to support your stance of a "cultural crisis". I'm aware of problems in our country, I just don't call something a "crisis" when it isn't. I don't say that things are worse when the data show opposite.

    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    CNN + Jon Stewart?

    Talk about twisted data, you only look at the last 15 years of welfare, and don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up. Welfare is not the only government handout. But I see how you debate, pick one small piece of the puzzle (welfare), and then limit it (last 15 years) so that it agrees with your side… and run with it. And you want me to waste any more of my time on this? :roll:

    It's really sad that you don't see what is going on in this country. America became the greatest country on earth because people knew if they worked hard they could accomplish whatever they wanted to. It was called “The American Dream”. The Parasite left has been poisoning people slowly with handouts and entitlements, removing the motivation to work hard and be innovative… Thus destroying the very thing that made this country the greatest on earth. That is reality, and that is the why we have a culture crisis. The fact that so many are dependant on the government and not themselves is scary. Another point you ignored, the alarms should be going off when TV can get someone like Barrack Obama elected. For all of our sakes, and for our children, let's hope that the majority do think he is a muslim, and don't vote for him again.
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    Why bring this up? Diversionary tactic? You said “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” I proved you wrong. Man up and move on, don't try to change the topic.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    This board may be notorious for people bailing, but you wont "scare me off". If you want to try and shatter my liberal stance, go ahead. Your response reveals where your information comes from. Mine comes from more than CNN. I didn't say the number of people receiving any public assistance was good or bad. You said we were in a cultural crisis. I said we are not based on the number of people on welfare being much lower in the last 15 years or so. That's not "twisted CNN garbage" and you have no data to support your stance of a "cultural crisis". I'm aware of problems in our country, I just don't call something a "crisis" when it isn't. I don't say that things are worse when the data show opposite.

    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    CNN + Jon Stewart?

    Talk about twisted data, you only look at the last 15 years of welfare, and don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up. Welfare is not the only government handout. But I see how you debate, pick one small piece of the puzzle (welfare), and then limit it (last 15 years) so that it agrees with your side… and run with it. And you want me to waste any more of my time on this? :roll:

    It's really sad that you don't see what is going on in this country. America became the greatest country on earth because people knew if they worked hard they could accomplish whatever they wanted to. It was called “The American Dream”. The Parasite left has been poisoning people slowly with handouts and entitlements, removing the motivation to work hard and be innovative… Thus destroying the very thing that made this country the greatest on earth. That is reality, and that is the why we have a culture crisis. The fact that so many are dependant on the government and not themselves is scary. Another point you ignored, the alarms should be going off when TV can get someone like Barrack Obama elected. For all of our sakes, and for our children, let's hope that the majority do think he is a muslim, and don't vote for him again.
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    Why bring this up? Diversionary tactic? You said “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” I proved you wrong. Man up and move on, don't try to change the topic.

    Somebody is feisty! (starting at the bottom and making my way up)

    I believe you brought up the religion issue, or at least responded to it in someone else's post. I was responding to different topics in one post and wasn't trying to change the topic. You by no means proved me wrong. A candidate that was non-Christian or atheist would have a dead campaign after Iowa (my opinion and not really provable, meaning you can't prove me wrong)

    I actually see a lot of what's going on in this country, just have a different take on it where my opinions and beliefs are formulated along with facts. "The American Dream" where people could work hard and accomplish what they wanted to is being redefined. I think you are grasping on to the mythical version from the past that really almost exclusively applied to white males of European decent. Can people still work hard and get what they want, yes. Do they do it all on their own? No. Did they in the past? No. Everyone is interconnected. Your dramatic talk about the "parasitic left" destroying motivation to work with "handouts" is grasping at straws and you trying to make sense of a problem that exists anecdotally. Saying out country is being "destroyed" reflects a level of fear in yourself and leaves you open to manipulation. Here's some questions eliciting facts: Define "dependent on the government" and how many people does this include? Show me some data where "handouts" are removing people's motivation to work. I know what, look up data related to innovations and patents and tell me if they're going up or down. Are other countries more innovative? I ignored your point about TV getting Obama elected? What do you mean? Are you saying media bias got him elected? You have to be more clear in your points.

    This sentence doesn't really make sense:
    '(you) don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up."

    I was asking you earlier to clarify what was included in being "dependent" on the gov. I asked if you were including Medicare and Social Security, and you didn't respond. What other "handouts" are you including in this so called "crisis". I referenced recent data, because you use the term crisis, which implies something drastic is/will happen in the immediate moment. It's not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I'm saying that welfare rolls are down significantly, where's the crisis? You can call your opinions "reality" all you want, but it doesn't make them real.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    Go Beavers wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    This board may be notorious for people bailing, but you wont "scare me off". If you want to try and shatter my liberal stance, go ahead. Your response reveals where your information comes from. Mine comes from more than CNN. I didn't say the number of people receiving any public assistance was good or bad. You said we were in a cultural crisis. I said we are not based on the number of people on welfare being much lower in the last 15 years or so. That's not "twisted CNN garbage" and you have no data to support your stance of a "cultural crisis". I'm aware of problems in our country, I just don't call something a "crisis" when it isn't. I don't say that things are worse when the data show opposite.

    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    CNN + Jon Stewart?

    Talk about twisted data, you only look at the last 15 years of welfare, and don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up. Welfare is not the only government handout. But I see how you debate, pick one small piece of the puzzle (welfare), and then limit it (last 15 years) so that it agrees with your side… and run with it. And you want me to waste any more of my time on this? :roll:

    It's really sad that you don't see what is going on in this country. America became the greatest country on earth because people knew if they worked hard they could accomplish whatever they wanted to. It was called “The American Dream”. The Parasite left has been poisoning people slowly with handouts and entitlements, removing the motivation to work hard and be innovative… Thus destroying the very thing that made this country the greatest on earth. That is reality, and that is the why we have a culture crisis. The fact that so many are dependant on the government and not themselves is scary. Another point you ignored, the alarms should be going off when TV can get someone like Barrack Obama elected. For all of our sakes, and for our children, let's hope that the majority do think he is a muslim, and don't vote for him again.
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Most of the people who think Obama is Muslim are Republicans and wouldn't be voting/voting for him.

    Why bring this up? Diversionary tactic? You said “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” I proved you wrong. Man up and move on, don't try to change the topic.

    Somebody is feisty! (starting at the bottom and making my way up)

    I believe you brought up the religion issue, or at least responded to it in someone else's post. I was responding to different topics in one post and wasn't trying to change the topic. You by no means proved me wrong. A candidate that was non-Christian or atheist would have a dead campaign after Iowa (my opinion and not really provable, meaning you can't prove me wrong)

    I actually see a lot of what's going on in this country, just have a different take on it where my opinions and beliefs are formulated along with facts. "The American Dream" where people could work hard and accomplish what they wanted to is being redefined. I think you are grasping on to the mythical version from the past that really almost exclusively applied to white males of European decent. Can people still work hard and get what they want, yes. Do they do it all on their own? No. Did they in the past? No. Everyone is interconnected. Your dramatic talk about the "parasitic left" destroying motivation to work with "handouts" is grasping at straws and you trying to make sense of a problem that exists anecdotally. Saying out country is being "destroyed" reflects a level of fear in yourself and leaves you open to manipulation. Here's some questions eliciting facts: Define "dependent on the government" and how many people does this include? Show me some data where "handouts" are removing people's motivation to work. I know what, look up data related to innovations and patents and tell me if they're going up or down. Are other countries more innovative? I ignored your point about TV getting Obama elected? What do you mean? Are you saying media bias got him elected? You have to be more clear in your points.

    This sentence doesn't really make sense:
    '(you) don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up."

    I was asking you earlier to clarify what was included in being "dependent" on the gov. I asked if you were including Medicare and Social Security, and you didn't respond. What other "handouts" are you including in this so called "crisis". I referenced recent data, because you use the term crisis, which implies something drastic is/will happen in the immediate moment. It's not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I'm saying that welfare rolls are down significantly, where's the crisis? You can call your opinions "reality" all you want, but it doesn't make them real.

    Bumped for a response from MG.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Somebody is feisty! (starting at the bottom and making my way up)

    I believe you brought up the religion issue, or at least responded to it in someone else's post. I was responding to different topics in one post and wasn't trying to change the topic. You by no means proved me wrong. A candidate that was non-Christian or atheist would have a dead campaign after Iowa (my opinion and not really provable, meaning you can't prove me wrong)

    I actually see a lot of what's going on in this country, just have a different take on it where my opinions and beliefs are formulated along with facts. "The American Dream" where people could work hard and accomplish what they wanted to is being redefined. I think you are grasping on to the mythical version from the past that really almost exclusively applied to white males of European decent. Can people still work hard and get what they want, yes. Do they do it all on their own? No. Did they in the past? No. Everyone is interconnected. Your dramatic talk about the "parasitic left" destroying motivation to work with "handouts" is grasping at straws and you trying to make sense of a problem that exists anecdotally. Saying out country is being "destroyed" reflects a level of fear in yourself and leaves you open to manipulation. Here's some questions eliciting facts: Define "dependent on the government" and how many people does this include? Show me some data where "handouts" are removing people's motivation to work. I know what, look up data related to innovations and patents and tell me if they're going up or down. Are other countries more innovative? I ignored your point about TV getting Obama elected? What do you mean? Are you saying media bias got him elected? You have to be more clear in your points.

    This sentence doesn't really make sense:
    '(you) don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up."

    I was asking you earlier to clarify what was included in being "dependent" on the gov. I asked if you were including Medicare and Social Security, and you didn't respond. What other "handouts" are you including in this so called "crisis". I referenced recent data, because you use the term crisis, which implies something drastic is/will happen in the immediate moment. It's not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I'm saying that welfare rolls are down significantly, where's the crisis? You can call your opinions "reality" all you want, but it doesn't make them real.

    Sigh… Still at it? I’m busy as usual being a productive member of society. It’s really almost impossible to debate with someone who doesn’t want to listen. Nothing I can say is going to suddenly clue you in. So all we accomplish here is you dragging down my productivity. That is a terrible thing to do because most of my paycheck goes to your beloved government handouts.

    You made this statement, “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” Now you are backpedaling from it. Man up and admit it you were wrong. A candidate can get elected when people are unsure about their religion, Barry is proof.

    As for the sentence that “doesn’t make sense”…. Let me try to dumb this down for you. Some things are affected by other things. (Still with me?) Like pushing down on one end of an air mattress forces it to bulge at the other end. For example, the government could take every single person on welfare and put them on another program, and then claim welfare is gone. It’s called creative accounting, and you are cherry picking by trying to just use welfare, and just over a small time span. It’s like using just SAT scores to determine college selectivity, when so many other factors contribute. You’re looking at one misleading cherry picked statistic that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about the direction of this country.

    Why can’t you just do your own research instead of bothering me? Have you tried this new thing called Google? Here is a great site to start at if Google proves too challenging: Click Here or Try this one for some a great example of the problems we face. Interesting choice of words they use! I found all this stuff in about 30 seconds.
  • pdalowsky
    pdalowsky Doncaster,UK Posts: 15,234
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Somebody is feisty! (starting at the bottom and making my way up)

    I believe you brought up the religion issue, or at least responded to it in someone else's post. I was responding to different topics in one post and wasn't trying to change the topic. You by no means proved me wrong. A candidate that was non-Christian or atheist would have a dead campaign after Iowa (my opinion and not really provable, meaning you can't prove me wrong)

    I actually see a lot of what's going on in this country, just have a different take on it where my opinions and beliefs are formulated along with facts. "The American Dream" where people could work hard and accomplish what they wanted to is being redefined. I think you are grasping on to the mythical version from the past that really almost exclusively applied to white males of European decent. Can people still work hard and get what they want, yes. Do they do it all on their own? No. Did they in the past? No. Everyone is interconnected. Your dramatic talk about the "parasitic left" destroying motivation to work with "handouts" is grasping at straws and you trying to make sense of a problem that exists anecdotally. Saying out country is being "destroyed" reflects a level of fear in yourself and leaves you open to manipulation. Here's some questions eliciting facts: Define "dependent on the government" and how many people does this include? Show me some data where "handouts" are removing people's motivation to work. I know what, look up data related to innovations and patents and tell me if they're going up or down. Are other countries more innovative? I ignored your point about TV getting Obama elected? What do you mean? Are you saying media bias got him elected? You have to be more clear in your points.

    This sentence doesn't really make sense:
    '(you) don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up."

    I was asking you earlier to clarify what was included in being "dependent" on the gov. I asked if you were including Medicare and Social Security, and you didn't respond. What other "handouts" are you including in this so called "crisis". I referenced recent data, because you use the term crisis, which implies something drastic is/will happen in the immediate moment. It's not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I'm saying that welfare rolls are down significantly, where's the crisis? You can call your opinions "reality" all you want, but it doesn't make them real.

    Sigh… Still at it? I’m busy as usual being a productive member of society. It’s really almost impossible to debate with someone who doesn’t want to listen. Nothing I can say is going to suddenly clue you in. So all we accomplish here is you dragging down my productivity. That is a terrible thing to do because most of my paycheck goes to your beloved government handouts.

    You made this statement, “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” Now you are backpedaling from it. Man up and admit it you were wrong. A candidate can get elected when people are unsure about their religion, Barry is proof.

    As for the sentence that “doesn’t make sense”…. Let me try to dumb this down for you. Some things are affected by other things. (Still with me?) Like pushing down on one end of an air mattress forces it to bulge at the other end. For example, the government could take every single person on welfare and put them on another program, and then claim welfare is gone. It’s called creative accounting, and you are cherry picking by trying to just use welfare, and just over a small time span. It’s like using just SAT scores to determine college selectivity, when so many other factors contribute. You’re looking at one misleading cherry picked statistic that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about the direction of this country.

    Why can’t you just do your own research instead of bothering me? Have you tried this new thing called Google? Here is a great site to start at if Google proves too challenging: Click Here or Try this one for some a great example of the problems we face. Interesting choice of words they use! I found all this stuff in about 30 seconds.

    your first paragraph is pettiness personified, and really adds nothing.

    to suggest Obama was elected by TV is nothing but a horribly hollow comment. Im from the Uk, and although I dont live in the states consider i have a fair understanding of your politics as well as our own. Forget whether he is muslim or not, after all does this really matter?, and lets focus on the fact that he is a vast improvement on his predecessor. I think thats clear to the whole world.

    Is there any need to use terms as condescending as 'let me try to dumb this down for you'....it seems you are determined to thrust forward the notion that you have such a superior intellect that you have to talk down to people to try and force a point forward without any hint of substance.

    I really dont care but Go Beavers asked you why all of a sudden its a crisis? rather than address his points you seem to try the point scoring schoolyard insults such as 'if google proves too challenging'.

    Pathetic, whereas you suggest he should man up, seems to me that you should grow up.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    pdalowsky wrote:
    your first paragraph is pettiness personified, and really adds nothing.

    to suggest Obama was elected by TV is nothing but a horribly hollow comment. Im from the Uk, and although I dont live in the states consider i have a fair understanding of your politics as well as our own. Forget whether he is muslim or not, after all does this really matter?, and lets focus on the fact that he is a vast improvement on his predecessor. I think thats clear to the whole world.

    Is there any need to use terms as condescending as 'let me try to dumb this down for you'....it seems you are determined to thrust forward the notion that you have such a superior intellect that you have to talk down to people to try and force a point forward without any hint of substance.

    I really dont care but Go Beavers asked you why all of a sudden its a crisis? rather than address his points you seem to try the point scoring schoolyard insults such as 'if google proves too challenging'.

    Pathetic, whereas you suggest he should man up, seems to me that you should grow up.

    My first sentence is just a dose of reality. I’m sorry if you think debating on message boards will actually accomplish anything other than wasting my time! If you really feel the need to chime in, you should read all the posts first. Because the debate wasn’t over whether or not he is a muslim, it’s over religious ambiguity of a candidate. So if you actually understood the debate, you would realize that he was proven wrong and that he should “man up”.

    Ok, so you say Obama wasn’t just glamorized by TV, and was elected for some other reason? Please enlighten me… Was it his experience as a politician? Experience as an executive? Was it his ability to deliver a speech without a teleprompter? Was it is well documented personal history? Was it all of his non-radical associations? What exactly got him elected? Hope and change… hollow promises based on a false premise that things were actually bad. How exactly is he a vast improvement over his predecessor? Things have gone from bad to worse since he took over. I guess the rest of the world is happy that he is dragging America down to their level.

    Go Beavers ignored PLENTY of my questions, typical for this board. So I reserve the right to not answer anything I damn well please. Why not rag on him for not answering all of my questions? For the record, I did answer his question on why we have a culture crisis; he just refuses to hear the answer. Why doesn’t he try to prove that there isn’t a culture crisis in this country, instead of putting the burden of proof on me? He tried to put forth some very misleading data, but failed at showing anything. It’s quite obvious that something is wrong. Maybe he is in the class of people that gives very little to the government and takes a lot… and everything seems alright to him?

    This has turned in to a typical debate on this board. Let’s face it; there are more liberals on this board than conservatives (cue sheep sound affect). It’s great that you feel the need to gang up on and attack those of us who don’t live in your fantasy world, I’m sure that validates you. As for being “condescending”, that is just more diversion from the debate at hand. It doesn’t help your case when you need simple things explained slowly to you, and if that comes off as condescending, then so be it. That is just a function of the other person’s intelligence and is outside of my control.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    MG79478 wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Somebody is feisty! (starting at the bottom and making my way up)

    I believe you brought up the religion issue, or at least responded to it in someone else's post. I was responding to different topics in one post and wasn't trying to change the topic. You by no means proved me wrong. A candidate that was non-Christian or atheist would have a dead campaign after Iowa (my opinion and not really provable, meaning you can't prove me wrong)

    I actually see a lot of what's going on in this country, just have a different take on it where my opinions and beliefs are formulated along with facts. "The American Dream" where people could work hard and accomplish what they wanted to is being redefined. I think you are grasping on to the mythical version from the past that really almost exclusively applied to white males of European decent. Can people still work hard and get what they want, yes. Do they do it all on their own? No. Did they in the past? No. Everyone is interconnected. Your dramatic talk about the "parasitic left" destroying motivation to work with "handouts" is grasping at straws and you trying to make sense of a problem that exists anecdotally. Saying out country is being "destroyed" reflects a level of fear in yourself and leaves you open to manipulation. Here's some questions eliciting facts: Define "dependent on the government" and how many people does this include? Show me some data where "handouts" are removing people's motivation to work. I know what, look up data related to innovations and patents and tell me if they're going up or down. Are other countries more innovative? I ignored your point about TV getting Obama elected? What do you mean? Are you saying media bias got him elected? You have to be more clear in your points.

    This sentence doesn't really make sense:
    '(you) don't take in to account what else was impacted when someone left welfare, what other costs went up."

    I was asking you earlier to clarify what was included in being "dependent" on the gov. I asked if you were including Medicare and Social Security, and you didn't respond. What other "handouts" are you including in this so called "crisis". I referenced recent data, because you use the term crisis, which implies something drastic is/will happen in the immediate moment. It's not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I'm saying that welfare rolls are down significantly, where's the crisis? You can call your opinions "reality" all you want, but it doesn't make them real.

    Sigh… Still at it? I’m busy as usual being a productive member of society. It’s really almost impossible to debate with someone who doesn’t want to listen. Nothing I can say is going to suddenly clue you in. So all we accomplish here is you dragging down my productivity. That is a terrible thing to do because most of my paycheck goes to your beloved government handouts.

    You made this statement, “if any candidate even was ambiguous about their religion, there's no chance of them getting elected.” Now you are backpedaling from it. Man up and admit it you were wrong. A candidate can get elected when people are unsure about their religion, Barry is proof.

    As for the sentence that “doesn’t make sense”…. Let me try to dumb this down for you. Some things are affected by other things. (Still with me?) Like pushing down on one end of an air mattress forces it to bulge at the other end. For example, the government could take every single person on welfare and put them on another program, and then claim welfare is gone. It’s called creative accounting, and you are cherry picking by trying to just use welfare, and just over a small time span. It’s like using just SAT scores to determine college selectivity, when so many other factors contribute. You’re looking at one misleading cherry picked statistic that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about the direction of this country.

    Why can’t you just do your own research instead of bothering me? Have you tried this new thing called Google? Here is a great site to start at if Google proves too challenging: Click Here or Try this one for some a great example of the problems we face. Interesting choice of words they use! I found all this stuff in about 30 seconds.

    You have an interesting style, MG. Earlier you said you going to rock my liberal world and I would run from the thread. Then you make vague statements where I asked for clarification, then you try to make it look like I can't grasp the intellect of said statements. I've asked you to clarify if you're including medicare and social security in the "government handouts" label more than once, and you haven't answered. I had to bump this thread for you to respond, but you were the one critical of liberals in here, saying that they ditch out on threads. After I bump it, you "sigh" and ask that I'm still at it.

    You provide links to answer my question about costs going up when someone is off welfare. I'd rather hear your opinion, because when I pick apart the linked info, you'll say something like 'I don't agree with all of it' or something along those lines.

    The link to the doctor's comments I've seen before and is one anecdotal story with bigoted undertones. In no way does it reflect a crisis and no data is given to support his stance of there being a crisis. If you want to play doctor said this, doctor said that, we can talk about the number of doctors that would like to see a single payer system in place.

    If you can't see through the bias of anything on the heritage foundation page then I don't know what can be done. Their "index" is completely invalid and while they try to explain if to make it sound like they know how to do research, if you understand what they are saying, you'll know it's bogus. Anyway, half that link is talking about the deficit which is a different story. So please stop posting meaningless links. I'd rather hear why you think there is a crisis.
  • Black73
    Black73 Posts: 1,018
    Go Beavers wrote:
    ...So please stop posting meaningless links. I'd rather hear why you think there is a crisis.

    And please do it without the name-calling and condescending overtones dude. There has been plenty of spirited, respectful debate for 5 or 6 pages on this this thread. The Beav ain't slinging mud!

    I'm curious also to hear how Obama has taken this country from bad to worse. Fucking Bush proved that he was liar...how much worse is "hope and change" than "Bush lied, and people died?" Like you, I didn't buy into the "Change We Can Believe In" campaign tagline, but aside from universal healthcare, I can't say that a lot of what Obama is selling is a bad product for our country. He, like GoBeavers, is trying to get peeps to say why they don't support policies, and they keep coming back with rhetoric.

Categories