T1B

Jerkovich wrote:Those numbers are on average. In my area, unemployed is reaching the 20% level and no end in sight. :doh:

You mean there are variations from the mean?

Surely you jest.

Felix wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:
No they weren't. Stop lying.

sure they were, obviously you weren't listening....everything he's done has been greeted with disdain and ridicule from the pitchfork and burning torch crowd who can't (or won't) recognize that it was the disastorous policies of Bush that has forced Obama to take the steps he's taken....

It wasn't Bush helping ACORN intimidate banks into making high-risk home loans. It wasn't Bush providing cover for Freddie/Fannie while being their largest single campaign recipient. And it wasn't Bush who killed SS reform.

Pelosi/Reid's waterboy has nobody to blame but himself and his socialist allies for what he inherited.

Felix wrote:so you're saying that Rove, Gingrich, Cheney and Limbaugh are not the mouthpieces of the Reps? Funny, they seem to get all of the air time so somebody other than those hapless douchecanoes had better start talking for your party

I'm not saying anything about them. Your hapless appeal to them as the mouthpieces is your responsibility to prove, not mine to defend/argue a negative. GFY. Sounds like you listen far more to conservative folks than anyone seeing that you're constantly tuning into Glenn Beck and Rush and drooling over yet another appearance by Newt and Rove on...well, I don't where the fuck they're on tv/radio.

nothing anonymous about it.....Limbaugh said it on his radio program...if you'd like, I'll hook you up with the transcript...Hannity pretty much states on a daily basis that the American people should "rise up against the tyranny" that is Obama's presidency....if this isn't tap dancing close to traitorous territory, I don't know what is.....
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907020010

"If we had any luck, Honduras would send some people up to help us get our government back"

maybe it's just me, but that sounds like Limpdick is advocating a coup against Obama.....unless of course you can spin it another way...

You friggin fools are truly entertaining.

That nation's Court directed the military to take action and was acting within it's constitutional authority. That's what you idiots, like Obama, miss here. In carping about the coup you ignore the constitutionality of that nation's congress and court's actions.

So, if Limbaugh, as you say, was advocating for a similar "coup" here, he was advocating for a constitutional effort to oust the President.

How is that traitorous, moron?

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:okay, then who is the face of the Republican party?!?!?!?!?!

Who says they have one?

No one on the right that's for sure. The left, well, they've been beating each off trying to pin that tail on Cheney, Rove, and Rush depending on which is in the news cycle.

The tards need a face to pin on the right because they don't argue ideas, they argue personality, rhetoric, etc. It's no wonder then that Steny Hoyer said yesterday that if members of Congress actually read the upcoming health care bill there'd be far fewer votes. They don't debate ideas. That's why there's no longer any more debate on global warming permitted. It's settled that we must do something even if that something has no chance of working or addresses something that's not even occuring.

The left simply hates democracy. Hence, their chagrin/condemnation when someone exercises their right to free speech, bear arms, or choose not to hire an underqualified minority for the saje of AA.

I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

trev wrote:I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

They're not bad. But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

BSmack wrote:

trev wrote:I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

They're not bad. But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

I know, they should believe in what you believe in instead. What do you believe as far as religion?

Felix wrote:sure they were, obviously you weren't listening....everything he's done has been greeted with disdain and ridicule from the pitchfork and burning torch crowd who can't (or won't) recognize that it was the disastorous policies of Bush that has forced Obama to take the steps he's taken....two wars, and economy in the shitter-I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but that's what Obama was left with.

Well, meeting Obama with disdain and ridicule is a hell of a lot different that what you initially argued, i.e., that "2 days after he got elected, the conservatives were screaming about why it's taking so long for Obama to turn the economy around"

Stop shifting the goal posts you ignorant slunt.

here it is, 7 months later and they're still screeching that Obama's plans aren't working, he's mortgaged the future of the country, he's taking us to socialism/communism, he's bankrupting the country, etc. etc.

Nothing that Bush did required Obama to nationalize major financial institutions and two automakers. Nothing that Bush did required proposing and signing a stimulus plan where the majority of dollars would be disbursed years down the road despite being proposed as an immediate economic stimulant. Nothing Bush did requires Obama to pass a disastrous cap-and-trade program. Nothing Bush did requires Obama to totally capitulate to Iran, Russia.

Your days of blaming Bush are over. Don;t act as though what Obama is doing is the only available course of action(s) to take. They're not.

I know it must be pretty frustrating for Reps to recognize that they've been marginalized, but that was a mandate by the American people, not the Democrats.....the Reps have nobody but Bush to blame for the clusterfuck that is the current Republican party[/quote]

trev wrote:I know, they should believe in what you believe in instead. What do you believe as far as religion?

Progressive liberalism, i.e., fascism, including eugenics. EOS.

BSmack wrote:

trev wrote:I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

They're not bad. But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

Kind of like when O and his home boys misread the economy ?

Derron wrote:

BSmack wrote:

trev wrote:I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

They're not bad. But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

Kind of like when O and his home boys misread the economy ?

Let's wait and see if B follows Rev. Wright. I'm curious.

BSmack wrote: But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

So quit voting for Dems.

JMak wrote:Your days of blaming Bush are over.

Dream on.

These fuckstains will still be blaming shit on Bush 10 years from now at the minimum.

trev wrote:

BSmack wrote:

trev wrote:I listen to a local conservative radio host who is a lot less high strung than Rush. (Rick Roberts). Rush is not the face of the party. He is a radio talk show host. That is all. He touches a nerve with the lefties. No big deal. Mitt Romney was my choice this time around. I don't care if he's mormon. Since when are mormons bad people? It's just another religion.

They're not bad. But they are stupid for believing in something that is demonstrably false. And I don't want stupid people in government.

I know, they should believe in what you believe in instead. What do you believe as far as religion?

I believe that religion is best left unorganized.

That being said, there is at least archeological evidence to show the existence of the tribes of Israel, Babylon, the Pharaohs, the Hittites, The Romans, The Greeks and even the Queen of Sheba. You can quibble over the faith required to believe in a supernatural heavenly force, but you can not quibble over the setting that the Biblical characters occupied.

OTOH, Joseph Smith invented his "bible" out of whole cloth. He speaks of vast advanced civilizations that quite simply did not exist. PERIOD. He makes claims that have been incontrovertibly refuted, like his claim that bees were introduced to the New World 2000 years ago, when they were in fact introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century. Or his claim that American Indians are descended from a "lost" tribe of Israel, which is incontrovertibly proven false by the DNA record.

Honestly, about the best thing you can say for the LDS is that at last they promote healthy living habits by banning alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Of course it is also possible to live in a healthy manner without believing the words of a false prophet.

BSmack wrote:Of course it is also possible to live in a healthy manner without believing the words of a false prophet.

So where do you fall on the current spate of nanny-state legislation? Where do you fall on Obama's preventative medicine bullshit that essentially compels healthy people to visit doctors for routine checkups under the guise of saving money (despite hundreds of studies demonstrating clearly otherwise)?

BSmack wrote:
I believe that religion is best left unorganized.

So why vote for Obama? He followed a church a lot of us would question. Who are you to say what church a politician should go to? Or if they should follow organized religion? Maybe mormonism meets a need for Romney's family. Just as Rev. Wright met a need for the Obamas. Some people think the bible is 75% fiction. Some think it's all truth. When it comes right down to it, most main stream mormons are decent people. There are extremes with any religion. Catholics don't subscribe and follow everything their church says. That doesn't discount the value it has in their life. Let's get down to the real political reason you don't like Romney. Don't post this B/S about his religion. It's a cop out.

BSmack wrote:Of course it is also possible to live in a healthy manner without believing the words of a false prophet.

Great advice Bri...ever think how it might relate to you and your libtards fellatio of Obama ?

Diogenes wrote:

JMak wrote:Your days of blaming Bush are over.

Dream on.

These fuckstains will still be blaming shit on Bush 50 years from now at the minimum.

FTFY.

JMak wrote:

BSmack wrote:Of course it is also possible to live in a healthy manner without believing the words of a false prophet.

So where do you fall on the current spate of nanny-state legislation?

Nanny state legislation? You mean like Tricky Dick's and Ronnie Raygun's pioneering attempts to threaten the states with abrogating the federal government's responsibilities in Article 1 Section 8 to maintain post roads in a successful attempt to invalidate the 10th Amendment?

I'm generally against both nanny state regulation and the idea that nanny state regulation is the tool of one particular political party. Republicans and Democrats will both try to regulate your behavior to suit their own interests.

Where do you fall on Obama's preventative medicine bullshit that essentially compels healthy people to visit doctors for routine checkups under the guise of saving money (despite hundreds of studies demonstrating clearly otherwise)?

Do all the studies you want. Simple common sense tells me that if I have a checkup every year, I am more likely to find and treat disease before it becomes untreatable. Of all the regulations I've ever heard, this one makes the most sense.

That being said, if you REALLY want to get the cost of medical care under control, you need to find a way to get Americans to back the fuck away from their super sized junk food.

Of course that might require more nanny state regulations.

Derron wrote:

BSmack wrote:Of course it is also possible to live in a healthy manner without believing the words of a false prophet.

Great advice Bri...ever think how it might relate to you and your libtards fellatio of Obama ?

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

Papa Willie wrote:Even IF Barry is re-elected, we'll still be hearing "But he's only had 7 years....."

If he's re-elected it will be because he has made substantial progress. If we're still mired in a recession with no visible end in sight 3 years from now, he'll have a snowball's chance in Arizona of being re-elected.

BSmack wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Even IF Barry is re-elected, we'll still be hearing "But he's only had 7 years....."

If he's re-elected it will be because he has made substantial progress. If we're still mired in a recession with no visible end in sight 3 years from now, he'll have a snowball's chance in Arizona of being re-elected.

That would be change we can believe in.

BSmack wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Even IF Barry is re-elected, we'll still be hearing "But he's only had 7 years....."

If he's re-elected it will be because he has made substantial progress. If we're still mired in a recession with no visible end in sight 3 years from now, he'll have a snowball's chance in Arizona of being re-elected.

If he's re-elected it will be because we jettison your party in 2010 and the GOP gives him something to take credit for.

trev wrote:So why vote for Obama?

Because we was the candidate I believed was better able to lead this country.

He followed a church a lot of us would question.

But apparently not the majority of registered voters.

Who are you to say what church a politician should go to? Or if they should follow organized religion?

I am a voter. If they want my vote, then don't join a cult like LDS.

Maybe mormonism meets a need for Romney's family.

That need being the need to wear diapers while attending church.

Just as Rev. Wright met a need for the Obamas.

When Rev. Wright goes L. Ron Hubbard on the Bible feel free to let me know. Otherwise it's not a valid comparison.

Some people think the bible is 75% fiction. Some think it's all truth. When it comes right down to it, most main stream mormons are decent people. There are extremes with any religion. Catholics don't subscribe and follow everything their church says. That doesn't discount the value it has in their life.

Actually it does. If you're going to BE a Catholic, then BE a Catholic. Lapsed Catholics are nothing more than agnostics without balls. Either have faith or do not.

Let's get down to the real political reason you don't like Romney. Don't post this B/S about his religion. It's a cop out.

Well, there are OTHER reasons to dislike Romney. He's a vacillating cockstain who never met a position he wouldn't change to benefit his career. I'm not saying other politicians aren't also guilty, just that Romney's vacillations have required him to sell his soul to a degree heretofore thought unimaginable.

BSmack wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Even IF Barry is re-elected, we'll still be hearing "But he's only had 7 years....."

If he's re-elected it will be because he has made substantial progress. If we're still mired in a recession with no visible end in sight 3 years from now, he'll have a snowball's chance in Arizona of being re-elected.

BSmack wrote:

Some people think the bible is 75% fiction. Some think it's all truth. When it comes right down to it, most main stream mormons are decent people. There are extremes with any religion. Catholics don't subscribe and follow everything their church says. That doesn't discount the value it has in their life.

Actually it does. If you're going to BE a Catholic, then BE a Catholic. Lapsed Catholics are nothing more than agnostics without balls. Either have faith or do not.

So you voted against Kerry?

Well, I guess it's too much to ask for Bsmack to answer my question without lying, spinning, contradicting himself or giving hysterical comments about diapers.

I should know better by now.

BSmack wrote:Nanny state legislation? You mean like Tricky Dick's and Ronnie Raygun's pioneering attempts to threaten the states with abrogating the federal government's responsibilities in Article 1 Section 8 to maintain post roads in a successful attempt to invalidate the 10th Amendment?

I'm generally against both nanny state regulation and the idea that nanny state regulation is the tool of one particular political party. Republicans and Democrats will both try to regulate your behavior to suit their own interests.

Nice dodge, popcock. I was referring to your comment regarding living healthy. Apparently, Democrats in various states want to regulate what you eat and drink and possibly tax your, er, poor decisions. Coupled with Obama proposing to use government power to compel us to seek regular doctors visits on the false premise that such visits will reduce health care costs (did he even think about that?), well, it's clear to me which party is more likely to use government power to regulate our health.

Do all the studies you want. Simple common sense tells me that if I have a checkup every year, I am more likely to find and treat disease before it becomes untreatable. Of all the regulations I've ever heard, this one makes the most sense.

Your common sense has failed you, again, fool. The research on this issue demonstrates that preventative medicine does not lower health care costs.

For starters, the majority of folks who are screened receive no benefit. That's because, despite scary statistics, most people will not get cancer. Let's look at breast cancer as an example.

According to government statistics, the absolute risk of a 60-year-old woman dying from breast cancer in the next 10 years is 9 in 1,000. If regular mammograms reduce this risk by one-third-a widely cited but by no means universally accepted claim-her odds fall to 6 in 1,000. Therefore, for every 1,000 women screened, three of them avoid death from breast cancer, six die regardless, and the rest? They can't possibly benefit because they weren't going to die from the disease in the first place.

A government policy that prods people into incessantly visiting medical offices for checkups, screenings, and tests will only raise costs even further. According to studies, preventive medicine thwarts little, though it does mean early diagnoses for relatively harmless ailments—and treatments for them.

Like most of you libtard twits, you don't think. For all the screening only a minority of people are diagnosed with something. Even fewer are diagnosed with major diseases. Hence, you sending tens of millions of otherwise people for medical screenings every year for their entire lives. And that's going to control costs how? Did you even think about the cost to the health care services industries to start doing all of the screenings and continuing to screen versus the number of people actually diagnoses with something? WTF is wrong with you?

trev wrote:Well, I guess it's too much to ask for Bsmack to answer my question without lying, spinning, contradicting himself or giving hysterical comments about diapers.

He's a Democrat. What did you expect?

BSmack wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Even IF Barry is re-elected, we'll still be hearing "But he's only had 7 years....."

If he's re-elected it will be because he has made substantial progress. If we're still mired in a recession with no visible end in sight 3 years from now, he'll have a snowball's chance in Arizona of being re-elected.

Bullshit. You people just elected arguable the most underqualified candidate in the last 50 years. And you did it on pure cult of personality. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

He'll be reelected because, again, not voting for him will be characterized as racist, impeding progress, etc., just as you people did it the first time around.

trev wrote:I should know better by now.

Hitting the submit button was your first mistake.

JMak wrote:Nice dodge, popcock. I was referring to your comment regarding living healthy. Apparently, Democrats in various states want to regulate what you eat and drink and possibly tax your, er, poor decisions. Coupled with Obama proposing to use government power to compel us to seek regular doctors visits on the false premise that such visits will reduce health care costs (did he even think about that?), well, it's clear to me which party is more likely to use government power to regulate our health.

And so do Republicans. Quit making this into a partisan issue. For example, Republicans have supported every single piece of nanny state legislation to ever come down the pike in NY State. Period. If nanny state legislation bothers you that much, then get your own party's house in order first before you attack Democrats.

Your common sense has failed you, again, fool. The research on this issue demonstrates that preventative medicine does not lower health care costs.

For starters, the majority of folks who are screened receive no benefit. That's because, despite scary statistics, most people will not get cancer. Let's look at breast cancer as an example.

According to government statistics, the absolute risk of a 60-year-old woman dying from breast cancer in the next 10 years is 9 in 1,000. If regular mammograms reduce this risk by one-third-a widely cited but by no means universally accepted claim-her odds fall to 6 in 1,000. Therefore, for every 1,000 women screened, three of them avoid death from breast cancer, six die regardless, and the rest? They can't possibly benefit because they weren't going to die from the disease in the first place.

There are what, about 150 million women in this country? And you want to stand in the way of something that will save 4.5 million of them from punching out way too early?

Niiiice.

A government policy that prods people into incessantly visiting medical offices for checkups, screenings, and tests will only raise costs even further. According to studies, preventive medicine thwarts little, though it does mean early diagnoses for relatively harmless ailments—and treatments for them.

Breast cancer is "relatively harmless"? Colon cancer is "relatively harmless"? STFU now fool.

Like most of you libtard twits, you don't think. For all the screening only a minority of people are diagnosed with something. Even fewer are diagnosed with major diseases. Hence, you sending tens of millions of otherwise people for medical screenings every year for their entire lives. And that's going to control costs how? Did you even think about the cost to the health care services industries to start doing all of the screenings and continuing to screen versus the number of people actually diagnoses with something? WTF is wrong with you?

Yea, better to let women wait until their breast tumors have reached stage 3. That way they won't spend nearly as much health care resources.

^^^^^^^

Bodies in the street scare tactic.

So take care of the breast cancer patients..cut off the fat obese, lazy ass people and make them shape up and have input when some one ELSE is paying for their health care.

BSmack wrote:
Yea, better to let women wait until their breast tumors have reached stage 3. That way they won't spend nearly as much health care resources.

We have been doing this for quite some time now and it works quite well in health care management.

Sincerely,

Canada

Derron wrote:^^^^^^^

Bodies in the street scare tactic.

So take care of the breast cancer patients..cut off the fat obese, lazy ass people and make them shape up and have input when some one ELSE is paying for their health care.

BSmack wrote:

Derron wrote:^^^^^^^

Bodies in the street scare tactic.

So take care of the breast cancer patients..cut off the fat obese, lazy ass people and make them shape up and have input when some one ELSE is paying for their health care.

You just don't understand common English unless it is speaking your political agenda. Deflective action # 237 for you today.

Nice gorilla dust...literally...

JMak wrote:

No one on the right that's for sure. The left, well, they've been beating each off trying to pin that tail on Cheney, Rove, and Rush depending on which is in the news cycle.

they're the only ones talking right now, so what are we supposed to think? If they want somebody to mount a serious challenge to Obama in the next election, somebody has got to step to the forefront to solidify exactly what the Reps stand for....and no, simply harping that Obama is wrong in what ever he does doesn't really qualify as a "platform"

because they don't argue ideas, they argue personality, rhetoric, etc.

well as soon as somebody-anybody comes up with something resembling a platform, then maybe we could argue ideas....but to date, nothing

It's no wonder then that Steny Hoyer said yesterday that if members of Congress actually read the upcoming health care bill there'd be far fewer votes. They don't debate ideas. That's why there's no longer any more debate on global warming permitted. It's settled that we must do something even if that something has no chance of working or addresses something that's not even occuring.

and what exactly is your expertise in the area of climatology....if you're listening to the "deniers" well you're doing yourself a great disservice....look at the scientific evidence and quit relying on people that don't have a fucking clue as to what they're talking about.....Al Gore is a perfect example of an alarmist that really doesn't know what he'd talking about

The left simply hates democracy. Hence, their chagrin/condemnation when someone exercises their right to free speech, bear arms, or choose not to hire an underqualified minority for the saje of AA.

yeah that's right...we hate democracy and we're out to ruin the country....for what purpose, nobody can give me an answer....suffice it to say that we're hell bent on bringing this country to it's knees and nothing more.....

look, you can talk all you want, be at least take the time to educate yourself on that what you would deny....stop listening to alarmists and start doing some reading about the scientific debate between proponents of global warming and the skeptics of man caused global warming...here's a start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDS ... B8&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwY ... B8&index=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

it's called "climate change" now, mvs

all this cooling is just more proof that it's warming. understand?

Cuda wrote:
all this cooling is just more proof that it's warming. understand?

That statement indicates you have the qualities to make you a good POTUS.

mvscal wrote:
He didn't even need to bother with a birth certificate for that matter.

Pure bullshit...but thanks for confirming that you're squarely in the fuckwit corner

I have and the scientific evidence indicates that we are heading into a cooling trend.

by all means, I'd love to read these "scientific" exposes that indicate the earth is headed toward global cooling....and not papers produced by some ham handed douchebag working for the petroleum industry, but actual scientific analysis that has been peer reviewed and scrutinized by other scientists

The global warming circle jerk begins and ends with the simple fact that the oceans are not getting warmer. Game over.

would you like to compare how many peer reviewed scientific papers have been produced that acknowledge what you claim, versus the number that concur that global warming is real????

I'd say the margin would be about 1 to 100

go ahead, you start and remember, these studies must be of a scientific nature (preferably something that's been peer reviewed) with scientific data to back it up, not the screeching of some asshat that is bought and paid for by those that would most benefit from such a conclusion