djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:39:42 GMT -5
What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there? Vacationing? Hans Blix was in the process of verifying that there were NO WMD's. in Jan-March of 2003, he lobbied the Bush admin steadily for more time, so that he could complete his task (he believed that he would do so within six months). Bush, of course, advised him to leave before the bombing started. in short, he might as well have been vacationing, given the fact that the US had no intention of being proved wrong BEFORE the war started.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:43:08 GMT -5
The cute little picture was a meta commentary, not a response. I'm not going to respond to the points you raise because I reject the frame in which they are made. I don't accept your notions of the costs, I don't accept your conflation of the pre-implementation costs of a program with the decade-long cost of a war, I don't accept your assignation of "lie," I don't accept your comparison of the respective responsibilities of Bush and Obama for their respective policies, I don't accept that Bush would for example have continued with Obamacare, as Obama continued with Bush-era "war on Terror" strategy (including indefinite detention at Gitmo), I don't accept that the popularity of Congress's decision on the Iraq War at the time is comparable to the popularity of Congress's decision on Obamacare at the time -- in short, I reject the entire frame. I can stipulate to your definition of Saturn as a planet, and quibble with your designation of a banana as an herb, without finding it profitable to enter into debate with you as to the relative contraceptive merits of Saturn versus banana. I think I can make a stronger case that Obama knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people (we used to call that a "high crime") than you can that Bush did the same; and I can do so without implicating the Clintons, which you can't. Welcome to the boards. I like you already. you are a little late, and not paying attention, but that is part for the course.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:48:52 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat. That was his opinion. He was in charge of inspections which were to produce data. He was often obstructed, and thus didn't perform all the inspections and collect all the data due under the internationally agreed upon ceasefire; and he wasn't asked for his opinion. He was to supply data, and others would decide. this entirely misses the point. he was given what he described as "unfettered access" starting December 2002. he was making steady progress, and had stated that he would be done with his study "within six months" in early 2003. rather than waiting for that to happen, we started bombing in March. it is astounding to me that even after (10) years, some people can't get the basic facts straight. Blix was never confident that there were WMD. he was there to VERIFY whether they were there or not. if, in hindsight, you can't admit that this no cost exercise would have been better than an $800B fishing expedition, then there is little point in debating the matter with you.Further, Bush didn't lie to go to war with Iraq. that is between him and God. i don't pretend to know. but what is 100% certain is that he repeated the lies of others.In fact, Bush didn't require Congressional approval at all because a state of war already existed between the United States and a coalition of allies, and the Iraqi regime. attacking Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter and a war crime. to think that he could do so without so much as an AUMF is absurd.The only question was whether or not Saddam Hussein's continued obstruction, and feigning for his own reasons the possession of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons- a violation of the ceasefire- warranted a military response; and whether or not the dictator's regime was tenable in a post 9/11 world. For political reasons, the Bush administration chose to give Congress a vote in the matter (which again, was already decided in 1991, and for which Clinton sought no Congressional approval) and a majority of Democrats and Republicans chose to escalate the enforcement of the terms of the ceasefire, most importantly weapons inspections. 138 of our allies agreed that it was important. Saddam Hussein opted for war. Was the nation-building part of the deal? I would argue it wasn't, and shouldn't be part and parcel of military action. All of that being said- and all of it being water under the bridge, and Barrack Hussein Obama having already broken a promise to end the war in Iraq on "day one" of his presidency- it's simply nowhere near the level of partisan trickery, shenanigans, and outright lying and deceit that foisted the ObamaCare trainwreck on every single American. i don't recall him saying he would end the war on day one. could you provide a link?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 14:53:05 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat. Yet, he was still out there, checking. Checking implies he wasn't certain. You may well take issue with Cheney's 1% Doctrine - God knows there are good grounds. But that was the operating paradigm in the post-9/11 Bush White House. What were the odds on September 10, 2001, that hijackers would launch a coordinated offensive using multiple fully-laden passenger aircraft as massive incendiary devices to target major population centers in the US? www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 8, 2013 15:13:30 GMT -5
A "sensational" threat that "70 full field investigations" have been "unable to corroborate," from a declassified brief dated a month before the attack, certainly doesn't make it sound likely.
I'd be interested to see if you could put a percentage on the realistic imminent threat you'd perceive if you had been the recipient of that brief. Also to know what advance countermeasures - over and above the 70 full field FBI investigations already begun - you would consider warranted in the light of the threat.
As usual, these questions constitute the gist of my post the first time, and I'm obliged to repeat them to avoid contributing to the misapprehension that your repsonse addressed them in any way.
The pace of debating you, dj, is glacial.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 15:17:48 GMT -5
A "sensational" threat that "70 full field investigations" have been "unable to corroborate," from a declassified brief dated a month before the attack, certainly doesn't make it sound likely. I'd be interested to see if you could put a percentage on the realistic imminent threat you'd perceive if you had been the recipient of that brief. Also to know what advance countermeasures - over and above the 70 full field FBI investigations already begun - you would consider warranted in the light of the threat. i don't blame Bush for 911. i posted that simply to suggest that it was not entirely a surprise. i could post other things, of course- but you don't seem all that interested, particularly in light of what you typed below.As usual, these questions constitute the gist of my post the first time, and I'm obliged to repeat them to avoid contributing to the misapprehension that your repsonse addressed them in any way. The pace of debating you, dj, is glacial. i am fixated on certain subjects, and not on others, Mojo. i apologize if that rubs you the wrong way. edit: if it makes you feel any better, i often feel the same way about debating you.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 8, 2013 15:22:24 GMT -5
It was reported the Washington D.C. website has signed up 3 people so far. United Healthcare and BCBS had no applicants listed. Critics of the critics stated that is not fair. More have signed up than that, but there application(s) are kind of lost, or in internet limbo. And that number of applicants? 100 hundred, maybe 200 hundred. But then they are lost in internet limbo, so how do we know they will ever escape internet hell? Or are they secretly insured, and will never know it?
This is more and more looking like the lottery player that was only four numbers away from winning the entire Powerball jackpot.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 8, 2013 15:27:59 GMT -5
How did the President look when he apologized to the American people for stealing their insurance and leaving them uninsured January 1st? Did he look properly dismayed? Did he "feel their pain"?
I never saw the news clip. Just heard he apologized yesterday, on one of the cable channels this morning
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 8, 2013 19:32:12 GMT -5
How did the President look when he apologized to the American people for stealing their insurance and leaving them uninsured January 1st? Did he look properly dismayed? Did he "feel their pain"? I never saw the news clip. Just heard he apologized yesterday, on one of the cable channels this morning He didn't apologize to anyone for anything. He said, essentially, "I'm sorry you believed me". (hat tip- Rush-- great line).
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 8, 2013 19:44:46 GMT -5
It was reported the Washington D.C. website has signed up 3 people so far. United Healthcare and BCBS had no applicants listed. Critics of the critics stated that is not fair. More have signed up than that, but there application(s) are kind of lost, or in internet limbo. And that number of applicants? 100 hundred, maybe 200 hundred. But then they are lost in internet limbo, so how do we know they will ever escape internet hell? Or are they secretly insured, and will never know it? This is more and more looking like the lottery player that was only four numbers away from winning the entire Powerball jackpot. Someone signed up in North Carolina- really- some ONE. 1 signup. Not Fox Not Heritage See BS: charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/11/08/rocky-start-for-north-carolina-health-care-exchanges/78% of the uninsured do not want ObamaCare: www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/08/poll-78-percent-of-uninsured-not-interested-in-obamacare (source for the poll is USA Today / Gallup)
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 8, 2013 20:30:32 GMT -5
AGAIN...THE NUMBER JUST DO NOT WORK...MORE MONIES ARE BEING SPENT THEN Earned...sounds like France. We have too few 19-14 vs 69 to 84!!!! The youth do not want to carry it on there $7.50/hr jobs...even if they get 40 hours....I know I used to work 80-90 hours a week...As my son does now... I had two health care insurances and carried him on both when he was working on his Degree at the university. All this cost less then one person Obama care..I never saw a bill!!! Now Obama want to rise Minimum wage to $10.00 to $15.00 /hr...So where are the jobs. If we all eat our own Dog Food....support our own paycheck this could work. Last year Howard University department of economics reported a study on this that did in fact suggest this was possible..Return to Isolationism..Spend money only in your community!!! Support local jobs with craft quality goods not cheap imported things that do not last.Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt Charles L. Betsey Professor, Ph.D. University of Michigan Labor Economics, Economics of Black Community Development, Public Finance - Office: Room 309 - (202) 806-7685 - cbetsey@howard.edu Publications “Faculty Research Productivity: Institutional and Personal Determinants of Faculty Publications,” The Review of Black Political Economy, 33: 4 (Spring 2006). Guest editor, “Special Issue on Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” The Review of Black Political Economy, 33: 4 (Spring 2006).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 8, 2013 20:41:14 GMT -5
Just a bit on the role of insurance agents and brokers in health reform, from WSJ: WSJ - Market Watch
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 8, 2013 22:33:00 GMT -5
News agencies are reporting only something like 22% of the eligilble non-insured have even bothered trying to go online to check it out. And yet the website was overwhelmed by the traffic on day one and two.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2013 22:48:21 GMT -5
News agencies are reporting only something like 22% of the eligilble non-insured have even bothered trying to go online to check it out. And yet the website was overwhelmed by the traffic on day one and two. i really think that 22% is fairly good for the first 5 weeks. people tend to wait until the last minute to do things.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 8, 2013 23:11:11 GMT -5
Since around 40% of the uninsured population are Medicaid-eligible but not Medicaid-enrolled (around 60% of children eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP are not enrolled) and since around 40% of the uninsured population will still be uninsured after PPACA fully rolls out, I don't think the difference will be altered substantially by the reform. This of course being the point. Not surprisingly, it has been lost on sone here.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 8, 2013 23:18:53 GMT -5
well it appears that 50,000, no wait five thousand...oops, I misread it 500 nope again I'm mistaken, it's 50. Darn it, allergies are making my eyes water- it was blurry- oh, there it is: the number is five. Five as in Cinco 5 people the signed up in Washington DC.
#ObamaCareMeltDown
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 9, 2013 5:40:02 GMT -5
More Information on Minimum wages raise....At that rate now one should get the premiums paid for them by Obama Care...So it a pay raise that does raise spending income...But it sounds good!!! TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE...SOMEONE HAS TO PAY ...WE GET NO FREE LUNCH..AGAIN... We do need to support American Producers esp Craftsman..We need more startup firm in our cities and towns....American jobs for American Craftsman...( Man is a verb..from hands) Just a thought,
BiMetalAuPt
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 9, 2013 12:32:04 GMT -5
one "unintended consequence" that is popping up is that poorer rural areas are subsidizing richer metro areas with the premium costs.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 9, 2013 13:13:41 GMT -5
Typo or Freudian slip? And isn't the direction on that usually "down?"
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 9, 2013 13:55:15 GMT -5
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 9, 2013 14:45:29 GMT -5
Workpublic, Well, Many cities are short bed to take care of the populations. Who will pay for the added needed beds? The only answer in West Texas has been creating Autonomous Self-governed ; elected;Board controlled Hospitals with there own taxing Power. Austerity!!!!!with cost per bed lower then New York. Many of the hospitals are brand new from start to finish. Yes it has created jobs!! Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt Addendum on cost to replace St.Vincent in the Village..Cost is 300% of that of Martin County. Yes, I still have hard feeling over the way St.Vincent out bid me on a Brown Stone next to the Hospital. And yes we are again looking for our Brownstone. www.thecityreview.com/stvin.html
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Nov 10, 2013 2:32:46 GMT -5
"And you're okay with that? "If he was honest about it, people would see it was a bad idea; I support his strategy of lying about his bad idea so we can all suffer the consequences of his bad idea." What? "
This is your opinion not mine. It is rare in my experience for most politicians to be fully forthcoming on the pros and cons of what they propose. Most gloss over the potential problems and only really speak to the benefits or preferred talking points.
You seem to be of the opinion that we or the public in general is only capable of taking what a plitician says literally. That the public is unable to critically dissect an idea unless its presented in all aspects. I don't think that's true. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hear for example, "Read my lips, no new taxes" to know that in general when someone says the equivalent of read my lips that whatever following is not all that likely. In fact, those who study people know that kind of sentence is usually a set up to tell you that the speaker will not follow through on the latter part of the sentence. Likewise, listeners shouldn't be so devoid of critical thought that they take anything a President or politician says at face value.
It shouldn't have been that challenging to realize that the President has at best limited control over insurance companies therefore limited control over the policies they offer and the costs they assign to those policies. There was no known provision in the law to restrict premium increases nor policy drops or changes so for me what has happened is notthe huge surprise that it appears to be to you.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Nov 10, 2013 2:52:22 GMT -5
"I suspect you will also not see this point but there's a decoherence between the bolded portions here. On the one hand, I'm advised in your specific case to treat what you say at face value. On the other, I'm advised in the general case to treat what people say as only part of a whole, and not rely on what they say as gospel. For good measure, I'm explicitly informed that my face-value interpretation of what you say gives me no insight into what you believe."
"Deal with my statements as they are and do not pretend you have any idea what I really believe. "
"People are people. What they say is only part of the story. One needs to study what they say and do, then draw conclusions from that."
I've italicized my statements you've chosen to take issue with. Perhaps what I said isn't obvious enough? In the case of posts like on this board one can only really respond to what is written and perhaps knowledge of how that poster tends to post. When evaluating people in RL or politicians say speaking on TV there is more information to be had on what they really mean in addition to the words they are actually saying. Studies used to say only 10% of communication is verbal and the rest is non-verbal. I'm highly interested in acting and how people really are. If the message of what was said was the real full message there would be no good or bad actors. They'd all likely be pretty similar. But in RL, how you say the words can be a big part of what you really mean by them as they can be said straight and sincere or sarcastic and therefore likely meaning the exact opposite of what is said. Likewise, someone looking directly at you sincerely saying something usually has a different meaning and intent behind their words than someone looking away or rolling their eyes.
When I read your recent responses to my posts its clear you aren't comprehending or perhaps caring about what I'm really saying. One of the posts I wanted to comment on was you going off about how I didn't understand how premiums were calculated yada, yada, and all I said and posited was that premiums were IMO likely raised higher than necessary as a potential safe guard to the company. And I based that on how the credit card company interest rates changed immediately before and after the new law. And how it has changed again and those 0% offers they said would never ever exist again are back.
That is all. I didn't say anything more than that, but you are seeing and commenting on things I didn't say, imply, nor believe.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 10, 2013 7:51:32 GMT -5
Typo or Freudian slip? And isn't the direction on that usually "down?" I saw that, tallguy, but decided - what with the image it provoked - to pretend I didn't. Too funny, workpublic!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 10, 2013 9:49:12 GMT -5
well it appears that 50,000, no wait five thousand...oops, I misread it 500 nope again I'm mistaken, it's 50. Darn it, allergies are making my eyes water- it was blurry- oh, there it is: the number is five. Five as in Cinco 5 people the signed up in Washington DC. #ObamaCareMeltDown Oops. I under reported by "two people" a couple of posts before PBP'S. I said three. That is a 66% error rate. Unacceptable on my part. I apologize. Sorry for the error.................................
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 10, 2013 21:18:02 GMT -5
Since we're summarizing:
1) Intellectually, your arguments are vacuous because they are based on unsubstantiated and unresearched opinions in which you equate your ignorance of one area with your ignorance of another and presume that your conclusions are unimpaired thereby because they're equally divorced from fact in both cases.
2) Morally, your arguments are repugnant because they place the moral responsibility for a fraud on its dupes. It is contemptible and disgraceful, and honestly not even partisanship or a level of uncritical thought bespeaking actual brain trauma excuses it.
My appetite for bantering with the intellectually vacuous and morally repugnant is limited.
Please understand that I'm not saying you are either intellectually vacuous or morally repugnant, I'm just begging you on bended knee to come at me with less contemptible arguments, or else direct them elsewhere. You can of course do whatever you like.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 10, 2013 21:28:07 GMT -5
Except this is an excellent example of you opinionating without the slightest vestige of knowledge of what you're talking about.
PPACA details pretty closely, and the HHS regulations derived from it detail still more closely, what kind of products the insurance companies can offer, what benefits those products must include, what the differential between high- and low-risk premiums can be, what the medical loss ratio can be, to whom those products can be sold and in what defined marketplaces. In that context, it's actually harder to identify aspects of the transaction that the President doesn't claim to control.
It is certainly the case that many of us on the right were saying years ago that Obamacare would, by design, deliberately drop people off their existing plans and force them onto the exchanges, since the 'penalties' for healthy individuals were obviously insufficient to compel uptake of relatively low-risk insureds into the pool generated by abandoning the pre-existing condition exclusion. But you're ignoring all of these things, and appealing to a kind of naïve mistrust of all politicians that nevertheless becomes the equivalent of naïve trust if applied the way you're suggesting.
But it is also the case that the President could, simply by drafting regulations or PPACA itself differently - as various alarmed Democrats in the Senate are now trying to do - have made his promise a true one. Suggesting that we should have known he wouldn't because he couldn't is - I'll be kind to you - misleading. It's actually stupid if you believe it, but I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you don't, by an extension of the logic you applied in assuming the President was smart enough to know his nonsense was nonsense when he spouted that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 10, 2013 21:34:58 GMT -5
To forestall a criticism -
Of course there are no minimum standards for contributions to a thread on a public forum. Nobody needs to flash their credentials.
We do have a Code of Conduct to abide by, and the interpretations of that are a matter for moderators.
My objection is simply to being lectured on a topic on which I am more than normally informed by somebody who is by confession and apparent evidence less than normally informed, and particularly to the condescending tone adopted therein, which I repay in kind in the confident knowledge it will earn some form of rebuke but the faint hope it will also be acknowledged by someone as being a repayment.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,494
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 11, 2013 5:51:58 GMT -5
Since we're summarizing: 1) Intellectually, your arguments are vacuous because they are based on unsubstantiated and unresearched opinions in which you equate your ignorance of one area with your ignorance of another and presume that your conclusions are unimpaired thereby because they're equally divorced from fact in both cases. 2) Morally, your arguments are repugnant because they place the moral responsibility for a fraud on its dupes. It is contemptible and disgraceful, and honestly not even partisanship or a level of uncritical thought bespeaking actual brain trauma excuses it. My appetite for bantering with the intellectually vacuous and morally repugnant is limited. Please understand that I'm not saying you are either intellectually vacuous or morally repugnant, I'm just begging you on bended knee to come at me with less contemptible arguments, or else direct them elsewhere. You can of course do whatever you like. Get over yourself mojo. Just skip reading anything from that poster or any other poster whose postings you find intellectually vacuous or morally repugnant.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 7:41:12 GMT -5
Two splendid contributions there. The discourse is so elevated it becomes hard to breathe.
Be better than me before you lecture me, thanks.
|
|