David duke the kkk grand dragon is now a republican representative of louisianna and running as a republican president for the 2012 elections ...republicans always catering the racist. why in todays time do kkk members advertise to vote republican on their webpage.......and another.....
Haley Barbaour another kkk republican governor in favor of segragation activist group...republicans are kkk but in camo. suits...he is also part of the conservative citizens council. fox bias smears
I did, i was heavily intoxicated when i wrote that comment ( 4 months ago? holy shit ! )
And by her familiarity to " NODDING" ( sorry, I yell sometimes) , I meant she sucks an unfathomable amount of coke-powdered corporate cocks ( Sorry again, i'm not too good at that whole being subtle thing, as you can see ) .
This isn't a slip. Fox has continuous non-stop biase in their reporting. Fox is rightwing/Republican news and they admit that now. Anyone who can't see that must have just came form another planet.
@nateispwnage Yeah, shame on them for posting something that a person "actually" said on TV. God forbid people should be held accountable for what they promote on national television.
@2484Stryker My point is; Why would they call it a "Freudian Slip". There's nothing "Freudian" about it. It's obvious that they posted it because they are a liberal, retarded organization. This is just simply something that they can't agree with.
and saying that the government ((not the one conservatives actively try to destroy and then blame liberals for it's shortcomings, (i.e. the defunding, dismantling, and cronyism by bush with fema before katrina... you get that right? the bush/cheney regime contemptuously gutted fema, then comes katrina and it's totally ineffective and headed by the most incompetent and unqualified campaign favor bush can find... then the fucks blame bad government. well you destroyed it on purpose asswipe!
hey mediamatters, I catch your fake "youboobers" all the time, you should do a better job of making up sites. The usual M.O. is no friends, no subs, of if they do have a sub none of them have pictures :)
Of course your fake "commentors" always have no picture, no original videos, and sadly no talent. ;(
where's the "freudian slip", they don't want health care for those who can't afford it. they think access to treatment and medicine should be based on your income. it's the whole idea behind privatization of all government entities. the common good should be sold off to the highest bidders. our parks, our retirement, our medical care, our schools, our roads, everything... it all should be for those who can afford it.
@tomitstube you have a misconception of the argument. these things are already private and the government is arguing for the federalization of those things. and the concept of affording it is something that the government should take into account before it decides to start giving "free" stuff to the citizens cause it isn't free and they can't afford it....
@plymc9 ~ well you're right, health care is currently private, i shouldn't have mixed them.
here's where you're wrong. it isn't free, if i had a dime for every time i've heard that along with death panels & government takeovers, i'd be able to afford private insurance.
what we want is competition. the current system is an overpriced failure. but hey it looks like you won. congrats, have they raised your premiums yet? if you're middle class you'll soon be priced out. good for you.
@tomitstube I think you have a complete misunderstanding of my comment. The they of which I was speaking is the federal government and "THEY" can't afford to pay for the health care of others... as I was saying, universal health care is never free, because somebody pays for it. So, I think we're just misunderstanding each other.
@plymc9 ~ uh no, you called it "free". who do you think is paying for the 56 million uninsured right now? or maybe we should just reject 1 out of 5 people from medical care? the current cost of the federal gdp for health care is 18%. private care just keeps dumping expensive customers onto the public roles, and you pay for them in tax dollars which leads to less money for other things. but hey, you keep supporting the leeches of private insurance. got your increase yet? congratulations!
@tomitstube So you actually think the fix is government take over? Since when has the federal government ever made something better? You want the same people that brought you FEMA after Katrina, Medicare, Medicade, social security, corn subsidies for ethanol, the War in Iraq, and Cash for Clunkers to run your health. I realize that the private system has flaws, but I vehemently oppose the idea of giving the government control of my health. They suck at everything they take over and make it worse
@plymc9 ~ who said anything about "government takeover"? you did, and i guess if you frame it that way, then we can't have a real discussion because you don't even understand how government works. making a bunch of non-sequitur talking points that blames everything on some generic "evil" government just proves you have no idea what you're talking about. but you have no problem with a private insurance company that decides who gets care and what treatment they'll pay for?
@tomitstube Well, when someone is assuming control of something that it did not previously have control or jurisdiction, one of many phrases that can be used to describe this transaction of power/authority is taking over. In context, it is the federal government that is assuming control, which would make it a "government takeover". This is not a difficult concept to understand. Furthermore, you failed to even address my point. What in its track record makes you think the gov. can do better?
@tomitstube Everything about what you're saying is intellectual dishonesty. No one argues that there aren't flaws within the system. There are ways to improve it. But, trading in our system for one that we know doesn't work. All we have to do is look at all the other countries that have tried this and are going bankrupt and provide crappy service as prime example to stay where we are. And my cousins in Canada that have gotten screwed over would agree 100%. A shame what they go through.
@tomitstube Obviously, you're incapable of having intellectual discourse on the subject matter. I don't too much care that we disagree, but if you can't rationally work through clear cut arguments and bring something of substance to your response, but would rather just write off legitimate points, then I guess I'm done. Good luck in your endeavors.
@plymc9 all the other countries which are going bankrupt (that's the slogan from the 60's it wasn't true then and it certainly isn't true now) and for quality of service? well let's just say that there have been number of studies and u.s. ranks pretty damn low in every single one of them...
when you say "crappy service" you could look at the numbers how many malpractices happen in the u.s. system (yep you rank #1)
all the studies have shown that even in canada the healthcare quality is better
@Darusdei Wow, I'm gonna pretend that you didn't just say that. Obviously, you are not looking at the real data. But, the greater question that I ask, is where constitutionally does the federal government have the authority to a.) Regulate health care and/or b.) Mandate citizens to purchase a private company's product or face penalty? I mean, we can go back and forth on studies of effectiveness, but the real point is that it's not constitutional. That is, go find the amendment or clause.
@Darusdei Obviously I have read it. The constitution changes in so far as it is actually changed. Point being, at what point have you or anybody for that matter followed the actual legal steps to amend the constitution to expand the scope and authority of the federal gov.? As far as I can read, that would put things like health care under the authority of the states because of the 10th amendment. I read the constitution. So once again, point to the amendment and/or clause....
@plymc9 I'm not an expert in interpreting the constitution, i think they have legal experts for that, but i guess that doesn't help much because they're all in the conspiracy right?
@Darusdei Why do I need an expert to interpret what is clearly written? Who said anything of a conspiracy? You've only admitted your ignorance on the subject matter. You should go read your constitution and try to understand what it says for yourself. You would realize the Fed. gov. has not authority to take control of private businesses, nor does it have the authority to require me to buy a product in order to be in good standing with the law. Read before you throw crap out there.
@plymc9 government still isn't taking control of any private business and yes government has previously forced you to buy a certain product in different cases, for example car insurance
@Darusdei The first point, i'll ignore cause I can't actually believe that you'd argue for government HC and then try to act like that isn't a "takeover" of the private sector. Use your brain genius. To the second point on car insurance. Not even the same thing. 1. You are not required to insure yourself, you are required to insure the person that you might potentially hit with your car 2. The government doesn't make you buy a car. So, you don't have to buy insurance. Get it?
@plymc9 Oh it's a take over now... mate, tell me a country where there is only the government providing healthcare and please refrain yourself from taking some third world countries as an examples.
i don't really care who you are required to insure, it's not even the point.
@Darusdei To the first part, what exactly do you think socialized medicine is? You can use whatever term you want: take over, government run, socialized, universal... it all amounts to the same thing. So, you pick a country that invokes those principles and that's what it is. On the second point, actually it is the point. You don't have to buy car insurance, because you don't have to even buy a car and the insurance you buy isn't even for you. it's to make sure others are covered if you wreck.
@Darusdei When the fed. gov. decide to set the standard by which all other companies in that industry must abide, while simultaneously starting its own company, that would be a take over. But, I mean what do you think "universal" means?
As for the 2nd point, It would seem to me that you are forgetting that car insurance is mandated by states, not DC, which falls perfectly within the scope of the 10th amendment and is thus, constitutional.
@Darusdei Once again, the legal question at hand is whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to provide that service. The answer is, unless it is one of the enumerated powers, set aside in the constitution, then no. Regardless of how noble the service may be in your eyes, it has not authority to move in that matter. So, states mandate car insurance, and unless you add an amendment then HC can't be federally mandated or made "universal".
@plymc9 that's just rhetorical nonsense, no lawyers on their toes screaming anything about providing healhcare as illegal guess why? enumerated powers isn't some list of things that the government may do... that's why you have legal experts who interpret it...
@Darusdei Actually it is... That's why you should go back and read the constitution. And for those people that have been fighting, that's specifically the issue at hand. By the way, that's why the Arizona Law got shot down. Because immigration is something that was given as a federal responsibility in the constitution. You've just proven that you have no idea what you're talking about and don't have the intellect to belong in this conversation. Go read the constitution.
@Darusdei If a law was assumed constitutional just because it was passed then there would be no need for the Supreme Court; which by the way, rules on laws when their constitutionality is challenged. Once again, you've proven that you intellectually do not belong in this conversation cause you've neither read the constitution nor have demonstrated that you would be able to understand it if you did read it. If I was you, I would just keep my mouth shut, cause you look like an idiot.
@plymc9 i'm not pretending to know everything about the subject, you are.
you've only proven that you're extremely emotional about the subject, hence the phrases "constitution doesn't say anything about health care" or the ridiculous "ad hominems"
@Darusdei So if someone points to the constitution, which sets the framework for our country, then that makes me emotional. Once again, you've admitted that you actually don't know what you're talking about. This isn't difficult. As stated before, the same argument that I'm outlining is what the supreme court used to shoot down the Arizona immigration law. So, it is very relevant... and you need to go read the constitution first, before speaking.
@Darusdei By the way, I'm not pretending to know about the constitution. I happened to major in political science. But, even if I hadn't, the subject isn't difficult. Read it for yourself. It isn't very long. It's not a difficult read. It's very straight forward. There's the articles... and the bill of rights. The Bill of rights, lists the rights the federal government is expected required to protect, including the 10th Amendment.
No to health care! Let the poor and the middle class suffer from the diseases they brought on themselves! Being poor is a CHOICE made by LAZY PEOPLE! Feed their bodies into a meat grinder!
The upper class are the only TRUE AMERICANS. Everyone else is just leeching off the system.
Fox also didn't ignore all the warnings about the Freddie/Fannie coming disaster and those who got Frank and Obama approval for multi-million dollar bonus money for cooking the books and then putting them on their campaign staffs and are now telling everyone else they can't have bonus money like the hypocrites they are
They didn't ignore a whole host of things the others did, but that isn't news to you libs because you wallow in filth and think only FREE is news..FDR maggots turned into leeches
You know damn well that you cannot argue evolution, or climate change, and every anti-science charge you
ve made has been swatted out of the sky by yours truly. You can declare that I hallucinated a victory, and declare that I really lost but until you BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS across the entire spectrum of assertions you just threw at me, you are still just an OLD FART who believes what he wants to without regard for truth
You just dont want to come back to this page because you got your ass kicked.
Sweet: You need to watch Fox to know what stories they break. They were the only ones who did not ignore Clinton's affairs - the rape of Anita Broadrick - The attacks on Clearance Thomas - The Paula Jones scandals and then Monica and Clinton's depletion of our Cruise Missile stock pile to create a media diversion each time something bad was about to come out about Monica.
They didn't ignore the Chinese money Clinton was taking and the technology he transferred.
The NEED or Want for medical care goes back to FDR -- The creator of the WELFARE STATE -- and ever since there have been those who suck on the government tit instead of work and expect society as a whole to feed them, burp them, and suckle them in all things.
I don't think you work either.
How many medical bankruptcies in these other countries ... zero? If you call Unemployment typically in the 15 - 19% range as being normal I would say 20% of the country is constantly bankrupt. Nice try.
You libs thinking Obama care is super need to understand why it would be an economic disaster for the US. You all point to Europe and Canada and how you think it works for them.
THESE COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE OUR POPULATION:
US Population = 350 million
UK == 61M
Germany =82M
France =63M
Canada = 21M
Ireland = 4.4 M
Italy = 60 M
In short 341 Million people total or just under our population for ALL OF EUROPE and it sucks even on that small scale ... Think what will happen on our Size SCALE?
Sweet. I gave you multiple NON-CONSERVATIVE newspaper sources as well as official record sites and yet you still post these lies and adhere to your flawed concept of reality. You are in total denial of the facts and name calling and accusations of fabrication are only self-frustration on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I have yet to see anything Clinton did that he did not claim to "I NEVER WORKED SO HARD IN MY LIFE ON"
Clinton REFUSED to get Bin Laden. He had several Chances and the CIA did "sanction" him. Clinton says: Clinton defends bin Laden efforts, rips host Ex-president cites Fox hit job, says he worked hard to find al-Qaida leader updated 7:05 a.m. ET, Mon., Sept . 25, 2006 MSNBC The facts: From The Sunday Times September 4, 2005 CIA videos reveal the missed chances to kill Bin Laden CIA, "We were not allowed to kill him: Your facts are talking points not history Sweet. Clinton failed.
You will find McCain called for withdrawl along with his "7"... but so did Senator Byrd of WVA - and far more Democrats. Likewise all they got at best early on was resolution which is nothing more than sending a note to the White House asking pretty please
It was Clinton who withdrew within days of the event and not funding cuts that caused the withdrawl. Clinton was more interested in keeping his LEGACY intact and not getting blamed
He sent troops into Bosnia as well They are still there
Prove it Sweet... Clinton is commander and chief ... he gives the orders not Congress and they have to fund anything he does for at least 6 months before they can refuse to fund it -- Which has NEVER happened ... That cap was intentional ...
You really don't know how the government works do you?
Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland.
Those are the facts. They were Mr. Clinton's responsibility, and his alone.
Clinton's Black Hawk History
On Somalia, the ex-president is as mendacious as ever.
Mr. Clinton's responsibility in Somalia doesn't stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation.
More like I got too close to a grenade. I am also missing the lower right leg, but that is life, and I'd do it again.
That force asked for heavy armor--in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles--as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It was a "successful mission," he said, and "proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action."
But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia's warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. force. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: "If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now."
NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T GOING TO PASS. When you hear MIDNIGHT VOTE it always means it will pass -- they do the dirty deed under the veil of night. It passed by 5 votes. It still has to go to the HOUSE...and that is where all the seats are in danger next year. They won't be too keen on ratifying it.
Even if they do the next batch coming in will kill it as it will cost another 5.3 million jobs. It isn't set to take place until 2013 after the next Pres election. A lot can happen in that time
Get the book Black hawk down and read what happened by the people where involved. I don't know what history your reading but a lot of Clinton love is still out there. They covered up all of his extra-martial affairs and his selling secrets and technology to the Chinese and then giving them multi-stage rocket capability they promptly put Nukes on and aimed at us.
We beat this horse last night. The problem wasn't the banking industry it was the government run/owned Freddie Mac/Fannie May programs that bought these bad loans. The Clinton administration threatened the banks with legal action if they didn't make them and since the government was buying them up the bank wasn't out anything -- otherwise these loans would not have been made.
The Dems including FRANK and OBAMA stood in the way of reform 7 times ... without 61 votes you are screwed..
What option wouldn't they allow? I got news for you -- 70 dems will fall next year...just about Guarantee it along with Pelsoi and Ried. They are history. This Obama Care vote... it won't survive after next election and it is a diversion from the economy and the Afgan nightmare.
It takes 61 votes, because of McCains 7 the Republicans didn't have at any time. McCain wanted to president and by playing Maverick he thought he could bully his way to it. The Conservatives voted against him.
Sweet...you were a kid influenced by your teachers...you were barely in high school ... You had no concept of what was really going on in the world at that age and most of what you got was CNN - pro-Clinton news filtered. Make no mistake, it was as I said it was.
Bush could do nothing because the Dems wanted to play games and some of the Repubs along with McCain renegade. They wanted to play coalition building and tied him up for 2 years! It takes 61 votes and they didn't have it.
Clinton did nothing after the first world trade tower bombing and did nothing after the attack on the Cole. He did do a lot to attack the US including initial stages to train the seals in house to house searches to confiscate private firearms which was quickly shot down as soon as it came to light.
He did Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a half a dozen other attacks using the BATF as jack booted thugs. The result was Oklahoma City. Everyone arrested in Ruby Ridge cases were all acquitted in court.
Furthermore, Clinton cut our intelligence agency by nearly half and he stopped all overseas espionage activities which virtually blinded us. I was in Intelligence at that time and I KNOW THIS IS FACT!
It was Clinton who pulled the troops from Mogadesu after Black Hawk down as he was afraid it would make him unpopular not the Republicans -- in fact there was a call to reinforce and Clinton rejected it which makes these rag heads think we are weak and set us up for contempt and future attacks.
Sweet: You are far too young to remember this incident. You are wrong all across the board. The Clinton administration made it impossible and illegal for agencies to share information -- I.E. the CIA could not tell the FBI what it knew about coming attacks so they could be prevented and vica-versa. Likewise, the FBI was not allowed to move on any information under suspicion because Janet Reno said, "Plotting is not a crime. Doing it is a crime" and they had to wait until the act was done.
Thats all the obama ass kissers can do today is blame blame blame. No one will give a shit about bush come next november. Why the fuck do tou keep sayign the repubs could pass something without a dem vote. What the fuck they never had a fillibuster proof senate. There was a dem in office for 6 of 12 years. Wtf are you that much of a kool aid drinking moron. Bush was a real president Obama is a child.
@Seaworldexists, let me explain basic congress and senate 101. now, to pass a bill you need in some cases a simple majority, in others a 2/3rds. vote(288) in the house in the senate to avoid a filibuster 60.the last 2 years of the bush admin. you only had 236 dems (house), 51 (senate). see how many reps they would have had to get to get to 288. the 6 year dem(clinton) had to compromise with the republicans. bush had a worry free house and senate for 6 years
shut the fuck up about this OMFG the health care debate is so old. I heard Pelosi bring up teddy roosevelt today. God. Obama has wasted 2.5 months. Afghanistan is burning to the ground hows that for for paying attention to ground conditions. Hildog is fucking insulting Pakistan as they fight agains al qaeda. You must know where Bin laden is. fuck this president will in 100 years obama will be known as the man who destroyed the Us Superpower status.
Sea; the health care is a cover up for the failing economy and his failed foreign policies...it is what the media is fixed on and blurting out so we don't see all the other messes this clown and his puppets are creating.
Haaa! and your still sticking to left wing lies...and C network bias reporting...
WHERE ARE THEY IN IRAQ? They have been pretty much defeated...There are a few around and always will be but Iraq is stable and running itself.
What do you want? Peace and Joy JOy? Heck people kill each other here...just look at Ft. HOOD -- you can never get them all but you can get most of them
Sweet: Bush didn't founder. He kick them out of Iraq and the Dems did what they always do drag their feet with funding and approval. He was turning his sights on Afganastan which was quite secure up until the last year of the Bush Administration when they smelled OBAMA coming
You can say what you want but Obama bad mouthed the entire war and it was lost up until he finally made a visit and then suddenly the press said, Hey, we really won this one. Killing without nation building is a waste
Why did rahm emmanuel say that they needed a strong partner in afghanistan? Why is Obama worried about the legitimacy of karzai? He is building a nation. Al Qaeda is hardly relevant. It is the taliban who america is fighting.
Sweet...Obama hasn't got a clue what to do and you know it.
He is a total loss and man-child in real world game that will be gone in 3 years. He hasn't a prayer to get re-elected and his knee jerkers Pelosi and Reid have about 12 months before their time is up as well.
Conservatism is on the rise and this foolishness will end.
American health care is dreadful and an economic liability both for employers and individuals. I dont disagree about the problem and nobody seems to. But the dems want to use this premise to claim that anything is better than nothing. their plan will make things worse. It will ensure democrat defeat in 2010. Obama sent 21,000 troops already and will certainly send more though who knows how many. On the campaign trail adn since his election he has maintained afghanistan is the good war.
OBAMA SENT THEM WITHOUT COMMENT AND QUIETLY.... right after he got his Nobel Peace Prize for telling the world how sorry he was...he was right...HE IS SORRY...
Odd... he gets face time on TV everyday making a speech about something, but says nothing about sending in 2 Brigades -- which by the way IS NOTHING --- the generals asked for 2 divisions....and he sends 2 brigades...Wow! What a knuckle head....
Maybe. International law is imperfect. Goddamn UN lets africans commit genocide in Rwanda, Sudan and the congo, Serbs eradicate muslims and thats just in a 10 year period. Sometimes in a unipolar world america must do what is right not listen to popular opinion. It doesnt really matter anyway the wars been fought now your man is fighting his war in afghanistan. But foreign policy aside health care reform is shit. Probably gonna pass the house tonight though.
The war on terror was not declared against a specific country. Which war are you talking about Iraq or afghanistan. Ok if you're not denying the declaration of the war on terror preceded the war in Iraq we agree.
Loans they couldnt afford. For all your complaints aobut fat cats the crucial factor in the financial crisis was that mortgage payments stopped coming in. But you cool aid drinkers can never move beyond your stereotyped black and white society. Business bad government good.
'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated'
Bush 9/20/01. 18 months before war was declared on Iraq
Well i'm glad you know some of our history. I basically agree although after WW1 with our victory at vimmy ridge is where I would draw the line of full autonomy.
read a book sometime not just dailykos. The war on terror was a war on all terror. Otherwise it would have been called a war on al qaeda. Why did the US add the tamil tigers to a list of terrorist groups if it was only agains was Islamists.
It was all about housing. The major banking problem came in 1999 with a policy of deregulation that clinton supported. He had a veto you idiot the republicans only had 55 senate seats they needed 67 to go above a veto.
the war on terror was not a war on al qaeda it was a war on all terrorist networks and groups. Iraq was the perfect country to make the front in the war on terror. Afghanistan during the 1990s was crucial to al qaedas success. Now east africa and pakistan are. The war in Afghanistan is being fought so that a soviet style defeat will not embolden terrorists. America should have left after toppling the taliban. Few casualties and a strong message.
I agree but this bill is not about cost contanment it is about covering people with prexisting conditions by making it illegal for companies to refuse them. This is a lethal blow to the economy as people have no reason to get insurance before they are sick. Costs will skyrocket as people who have not paid in get all the benefits with none of the cost. You did bring us into the crisis. And you didnt help us gain independence. I aknowledge bush was fundamental in creating the housing bust.
the dems are now making things much worse. By the way as a canadian i must say we do have an interest in your affairs. Despite effective government management of our economy and the worlds most stable banking sectors you Americans brought us into this finanical crisis. Our domestic affairs are failry irrelevant because so much of our economy depends on a strong USA. Your Afghan adventure has also cost us 132 troops.
I completely agree with you that the republicans were extremly shitty. Thought the repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999 was supported by Clinton. Bush was an ass who said every american needs a home. And failed to reform the clinton debacles of Fannie and Freddie. The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan added 400billion to the deficit which would have helped but a terror attack from either would have been far more costly. At the end of the day the elephants are dead.
seems very convient to me. They sure as hell arnt waiting until 2013 to raise taxes for it which is why it is deficit Neutral. Spit on youre domestic policy. YOu're an idiot pelosi is the one making a mockery of domestic policy. If she passes this 2010 will be a terrible year for her.
Single payer is fine. Though it hasnt worked in this country as well as elsewhere. If pelosi was trying to pass single payer thatd be fine. This is just the worst of both worlds. A timebomb. Obamas no idiot why do you think he waited until 2013 for the effects of the bill to start. Get a fucking brain I thought you progressives loved people from other countries.
It could be a large as the universe and I just don't think you could get it there....but hey if you shoot for the moon you never know...Ambition is the first step to conservatism you know.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Obama spent a trillion dollars he said would create jobs. It is a lie. There are 3.5 million people out of work. If they wanted to create jobs the government could have given them a $15.00 per hour job for about 1/10 of the trillion dollars.
A trillion is a 1 with 12 zeros. The cost for jobs
$10,920,000,000 or 10.92 billion dollars
Savings: $ 989,080,000,000 or 989 billion dollars
It was about a power grab and control of the economy. And they can't account for the money they spent
Yeah doesnt take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Pelosi is so dumb its riddiculous. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate based on prexisting conditions. People must buy health care or face a fine. Of course the fine is about 1/4 the cost of having healthcare each year so obviously it is a disaster. We Canadians are probably the best to comment on your affairs. We experience you're culture without being completely immeresed in it.
Sweet: Life would go on without us -- but not without GOD... The Book of David said if there were no life (mankind) the Rocks and mountains would sing the Glory of God. In short, the fact there is creation at all demonstrates the awesome power of God.
And it was correct - Life does not evolve out of Chaos and without some kind of control it would slide back towards it -it was from Chaos this world was Recreated. God said REPLENISH the Earth - or PUT LIFE BACK INTO IT - so it existed b4 us
YOu have NO EVIDENCE that there is even a God to begin with, much less some kind of empirical proof that the universe requires its existence to survive.
You say that the rocks and mountains would sing to the glory of God, yet you have NO Evidence other than a tired old book compiled less than 1700 years ago by the Council of Nicaea to combine the warring Pagans and Christians of Rome.
Weed: You exist and that is enough proof to me of a God. Back to SCIENCE:
The probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life is one chance in 10 (229,879 power) and the years required for it evolve would be 10 (119,841 power) years. That is 10 (119,831 power) times the assumed age of the earth.
For it to take place over a 500 billion year period is one chance in 10 (119,701 power) years.
In short mathematically impossible according to SCIENCE! And this isn't cut and pasted
Your numbers ARE NOT BASED ON ANY PROPOSED VARIABLES. These numbers are tantamount to shooting a bulletproof calculator with a machine gun, hitting X, and declaring the number true.
I KNOW you didn't copy/paste them from anywhere, because those numbers Do not exist.
As far as the tired old book .. Weed I said it was from the book of David and it was used as a metaphor to demonstrate even life without mankind would still suggest there is a God.
David was saying Creation is the Glory of God not man and man was just another creation of God and not the center of all things.
Now why would you want to attack a tired old metaphor? It wasn't written for you and it doesn't change the fact SCIENCE CAN NOT REMOVE GOD from the equation either
I don't intend to prove the existence of God. That is a personal journey. You want to discuss Science as the basis of everything and I gave you SCIENCE which blows your whole belief in evolution and the natural formation of it on its own.
Now you want to change the parameters of the discussion to there is no God.
1) I NEVER wanted to discuss science as a basis for everything. My point FROM THE BEGINNING is that you are ANTI SCIENCE.
2) I NEVER TRIED to change this debate into the existence or nonexistence of God. YOU DID when you ignorantly and incorrectly asserted that one must believe that there is no God in order to accept evolution.
3) You DOUBLY lied on that one because you know damn well that I'm NOT an atheist, and wouldn't argue against the existence of God.
Weed: as far as discussing science versus God I didn't lie once and anyone who takes the trouble to back read through this stuff will see your attempt at centrifuge for what it is. I said I find it easier to believe in God than evolution nothing more and pointed out much of the Bible and Science say about the same thing.
You topic was evolution beats God, science beats God and no evidence of God. The math says your views aren't sustainable either. Life evolving isn't mathematically probable.
No, my topic was NOT evolution beats god, and THIS is what you were lying about.
I documented the three lies that you told , and if youtube hadn't disabled the ability to post direct quotes, I would have referenced them directly. Would you like me to refer you to the exact place on which page you lied?
I doubt it.
You were correct in this last post that I am arguing that there is no evidence of god, and so far, you have not provided anything better than "Look at the trees!" and "BALANCE!!!"
And no, as I have said numerable times, your math is WRONG. Not only was it proven wrong 50 years ago, it was proven wrong less than a year ago when scientists synthesized Ribonucleotides and rudimentary RNA molecules.
This was done by replicating natural environments, proving not only that it's possible, but that it no longer requires the hand of a divine creator.
You didn't give me any SCIENCE which "Blows my whole belief in evolution and natural formation" out of the water, you gave TWO unsubstantiated claims of numbers which SUPPOSEDLY declare the formation of life to be impossible, WHICH STILL SAYS NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION, EVEN IF THEY WERENT COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Old man, you've completely failed every single point you've put forth.
You still haven't defined what you mean by nature being "Balanced".
Weed: Regardless if you want to accept SCIENCE is not my problem. You can believe whatever you want. Most people do. You can pretend you are well thought out on a topic and you grunt like a monkey in steadfast firmness by accepting one part of science and not the other. If you pick and choose your cherries to believe you make whatever model you want. If you throw all the cherries in there and the ones that don't fit are picked out you have lot of BIG HOLES in your model. YOU LOST man up
No, I accept ALL of science, and I am not cherry picking information. You keep claiming that evolution has big holes in it, yet you fail to name ONE.
My position from the beginning of the Climate debate is that you are anti-science, and that is what the subject still is here. -I-am the one who is willing to provide scientific evidence for my claims, if ONLY you would ASK for it.
Now, the best part of all of this is that the LONE piece of "Evidence" that you've tried to bring up was a shaky piece of outdated, unsubstantiated, baseless, and DEBUNKED supposed mathematical garbage which argues against the FORMATION of life, which if you knew anything about the subject is NOT EVOLUTION.
You're referring to the subject of ABIOGENESIS, which is akin to, but not apart of Evolution, which is the study of the changes in life that is ALREADY PRESENT.
So far you have failed to put any holes in the Theory of evolution, and one half assed attempt at the Theory of Abiogenesis all the while vindicating my point over and over. You are an anti-science prick who argues from authority over subjects he knows nothing about. You speak that you "know enough" about evolution, yet dont even know that it is a separate subject from the one you're arguing against.
Now, because you were too much of an incompetent old vagina to actually meet my arguments at all, much less on a public forum, I'm going to post everything you said here so everyone can see the splinters of argument that YOU are holding onto.
Have fun weed... this debate is over for the night and you struck out.
Not bad for a senile old fart who was too stupid to know anything. You should have went to my website and clicked the links and found the one on idle thoughts.
Facts are facts and the numbers don't add up -- it is easier to conceive a God than just biological accident.
Never underestimate us old turds...we taught you what you think you know...lol
Snider, declaring that you won is the cheesiest cop out of any debate EVER.
Lets review, shall we?
Despite the fact that you never asked for it, I showed you several examples of Evolution, and speciation in action, and the entirety of your argument consisted of throwing out bullshit unfounded numbers that declare the impossibility of LIFE FORMING, not EVOLVING.
You do know that the Theory of Evolution does not speak to the origins of ANYTHING, including the origin of life, right?
Well, now I found one of your posts finally and finally this thread started to let me post to it again. I must have really stepped on some liberal toes.
I don't argue with anyone. I might debate them, but the facts are I must have turned you inside out for you to be so spastic. All this name CALLING REALLY SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.
A lot of noise with no facts. You want to believe you are evolved slug slime then I'll agree with you -- you are stoned slug slime.
Again, you demonstrate that you cannot argue facts, all you can do is declare that I smoke too much pot and that you Won.
In internet terms, anyone can see that you lost.
BTW, you didn't give me hard mathematics. Thats what I've been telling you. You don't even know what equation he used , you just accept it because it supports your POV.
You declare that I have a lot of noise and no facts?
I have given you nothing but facts, to every halfassed argument you posed. ASK ME FOR EVIDENCE.
Unlike you, I never supplanted my insults for real arguments. I have given you fact after fact after fact, along WITH insults, but you have not given me one single fact. You've given me an equation you dont even understand to prove wrong something we werent even arguing about. NOW all you can do is try to discredit me by saying I smoke pot.
....you are stoned slug slime...
And you're a retarded old fart who's living off of the Social Security I'm paying, while not even understanding the debate.
And what's even more amusing is that the best argument you can throw at me is "Do something more constructive than trying to keep America stoned" as if you know me, and you've seen me doing nothing but that.
Who brought up marijuana? You did.
The difference between you and me is that EVERY argument I have made against you has been based off of something you said, but the only arguments you have against me are ones that I dont even support.
I'm not an atheist. I don't want the entire US stoned.
You never supplied me with any math, no matter how much you want to keep declaring that you have.
You showed me what ONE GUY said the answer to an equation was. YOU dont even know the equation that he used, the variables, or if he was even accurate in his computation.
AND YOU STILL CANT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE FORMULA IN QUESTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.
Anyone reading this can see that you've not held up your end of the Debate.
You were on track until the pot attack... anyone who doesn't smoke it is an asshole (just my observation). Don't be like the liberals and try and force rules on us or you may be labeled conservative (which is the new N-word, not socialist). Stick with libertarian, they have not blasphemed our good name yet...
No, you did EXCEPTIONALLY bad for a senile old fart. In NO way did you win the argument.
The difference between the two of us is that you're the only one here stupid enough to try to declare victory when you cant even make a comeback to my rebuttals.
Here's a tip old man:
On the internet, when you declare yourself the winner, you lose half of your credibility. Only the audience can decide who won.
I do have to commend you on your typing speed though. What are you, 65-75 WPM?
Did you enjoy writing to yourself? I had a bet you would fire off several comments to salvage your point and call me something along the life of a failed senile old fart.
You constantly shift the parameters in every discussion trying to find a splinter you can hang onto. The topic was not about balance it was about evolution and the improbability of it and life evolving on its own. I gave you SCIENCE mathematical facts which destroyed your theories. It is not statistically possible.
About "Shifting parameters" you then say that the topic was not about Balance, yet you are the one who brought balance up to bolster your point. YOU are the one shifting parameters here, I'm the one meeting and surpassing all of your arguments.
You start with "Perfect balance" then "Look at the trees" then "genetic breaks" then "Cats dont evolve into dogs" then then "Some outdated mathematical formula said NO (to abiogenesis)"
You introduced all of these yet I'm holding onto splinters?
"OK...whatever you say...You have been smoking way too much pot and it is affecting your judgments. You failed and you know you failed so own up to it instead of coming back 3 days later all paranoid from your recent binge and claim you hallucinated some victory....
Find something more useful in life than believing you are Ape Man of the Nanook and trying to legalize something that doesn't need to be in society. It is bad enough we have a lot of legal drunks let alone legal stoners"
Now, the beautiful part of this is that I have laid down evidence and proven exactly what I sought to, and the best arguments youi have against me AD HOMINEM attacks, which are LOGICAL FALLACIES.
You're supplanting the argument that I am a stoner in place of addressing the arguments that I actually made.
If you want to SHIFT THE PARAMETERS of our conversation again, I'll prove my point a THIRD time by showing how anti-science you are concerning Weed.
Well sweet.. you can say parts of the Bible were taken from other stories because they found written versions in per-Hebrew cultures but you know the funny thing about cultures is not all left written records and just because one record is older doesn't mean it is not from the same event.
EVERY RACE including the most primitive all have an oral tradition of a global flood -- odd --
Truth is truth regardless where it came from.
It's possible it came from Bible foundations - the returned
Try not to get into the argument of whether or not God exists when arguing evolution. Thats not the point you're arguing.
At least I dont, but I'm a deist, so I wouldn't argue that god doesn't exist.
That being said, the argument from intelligent design is completely devoid of evidence, and I would never argue that there is any kind of evidence for god.
Weed when one looks at people like you you are right intelligent design is void.
To say it doesn't exist is foolish. Life is in balance... The world is in balance... things left to their own devices always dissolve towards Chaos.
For life to form as we know it - a very strict set of events have to be there -- not too much or little gravity -- there has to be a moon of the right size to slow down global rotation - water - aptmosphere - right distance from a star -- temperature - and Carbon
God does what God does Weed and it is written for his own pleasure. Nature left unchecked would fall into destruction but what we call nature and instinct is nothing more than the whisper of what I call God which keeps it in balance.
Genetic breaks that cause backward wired eyes are exactly that -- genetic breaks -- toxins in the water such as natural mercury -- someone getting kicked in the balls -- a fall -- a disease -- lousy diet ... They are encoded Environmental causes not God
I don't get this video. What was the "slip"?
redsox1006 3 months ago
David duke the kkk grand dragon is now a republican representative of louisianna and running as a republican president for the 2012 elections ...republicans always catering the racist. why in todays time do kkk members advertise to vote republican on their webpage.......and another.....
Haley Barbaour another kkk republican governor in favor of segragation activist group...republicans are kkk but in camo. suits...he is also part of the conservative citizens council. fox bias smears
Flash02021990 4 months ago
i like his hair cut
acanhi 7 months ago
Are you sure that was a Freudian Slip? I thought he was openly against health care?
michiganmoon 7 months ago
Hannity always holding a pen to make him look smart.
KoreanSatan 7 months ago
Hannity is an IDIOT
mrthebillman 10 months ago
She's just knotting her head, like "yeah dude you fucked up".
( the knotting gesture being something she seems quite familiar with )
DelbyC 1 year ago
@DelbyC Might you mean "nodding" her head and how is she familiar with nodding that?
aligerous 8 months ago
@aligerous
I did, i was heavily intoxicated when i wrote that comment ( 4 months ago? holy shit ! )
And by her familiarity to " NODDING" ( sorry, I yell sometimes) , I meant she sucks an unfathomable amount of coke-powdered corporate cocks ( Sorry again, i'm not too good at that whole being subtle thing, as you can see ) .
DelbyC 8 months ago
Michelle looks a little haggard. I guess being the Asian mouthpiece whore for the GOP gets tiring huh?
bdhcarbon 1 year ago 6
@bdhcarbon Bet she has to give a lot of BJs to a lot of fat old white bastards.
shadowfaxx1 1 year ago
This isn't a slip. Fox has continuous non-stop biase in their reporting. Fox is rightwing/Republican news and they admit that now. Anyone who can't see that must have just came form another planet.
AudioIndi 1 year ago 3
well i guess it would be a freudian slip if sean hannity was a real journalist.
tomitstube 1 year ago
wow, I wish I could work at MM so I could watch all these great shows all day long... what is it they do again? LOL
groquecrushridge 1 year ago
@groquecrushridge You are a moron and the reason this country is going into the toilet, idiot people like you.
shadowfaxx1 1 year ago
I don't understand. What was the freudian slit?
mickety2001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mickety2001 there is no fucking slip, mediamatters is just a leftist libtard organization, that's y they posted this.
nateispwnage 1 year ago
@nateispwnage Yeah, shame on them for posting something that a person "actually" said on TV. God forbid people should be held accountable for what they promote on national television.
2484Stryker 1 year ago 9
@2484Stryker My point is; Why would they call it a "Freudian Slip". There's nothing "Freudian" about it. It's obvious that they posted it because they are a liberal, retarded organization. This is just simply something that they can't agree with.
nateispwnage 1 year ago
and saying that the government ((not the one conservatives actively try to destroy and then blame liberals for it's shortcomings, (i.e. the defunding, dismantling, and cronyism by bush with fema before katrina... you get that right? the bush/cheney regime contemptuously gutted fema, then comes katrina and it's totally ineffective and headed by the most incompetent and unqualified campaign favor bush can find... then the fucks blame bad government. well you destroyed it on purpose asswipe!
tomitstube 1 year ago
Nah, he just omitted "If you want to deny people health care."
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
media matters 4 america hah.... I smell a leftiiiii bias.---- DUH I smoke da drugs can I have a job at mediamatters4america?????
blarmour47 1 year ago
michele lookin like a whore as usual!
halflifeproductionz 1 year ago
hey mediamatters, I catch your fake "youboobers" all the time, you should do a better job of making up sites. The usual M.O. is no friends, no subs, of if they do have a sub none of them have pictures :)
Of course your fake "commentors" always have no picture, no original videos, and sadly no talent. ;(
btwall60 1 year ago
where's the "freudian slip", they don't want health care for those who can't afford it. they think access to treatment and medicine should be based on your income. it's the whole idea behind privatization of all government entities. the common good should be sold off to the highest bidders. our parks, our retirement, our medical care, our schools, our roads, everything... it all should be for those who can afford it.
and that's the real oligarchy.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube you have a misconception of the argument. these things are already private and the government is arguing for the federalization of those things. and the concept of affording it is something that the government should take into account before it decides to start giving "free" stuff to the citizens cause it isn't free and they can't afford it....
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 ~ well you're right, health care is currently private, i shouldn't have mixed them.
here's where you're wrong. it isn't free, if i had a dime for every time i've heard that along with death panels & government takeovers, i'd be able to afford private insurance.
what we want is competition. the current system is an overpriced failure. but hey it looks like you won. congrats, have they raised your premiums yet? if you're middle class you'll soon be priced out. good for you.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube I think you have a complete misunderstanding of my comment. The they of which I was speaking is the federal government and "THEY" can't afford to pay for the health care of others... as I was saying, universal health care is never free, because somebody pays for it. So, I think we're just misunderstanding each other.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 ~ uh no, you called it "free". who do you think is paying for the 56 million uninsured right now? or maybe we should just reject 1 out of 5 people from medical care? the current cost of the federal gdp for health care is 18%. private care just keeps dumping expensive customers onto the public roles, and you pay for them in tax dollars which leads to less money for other things. but hey, you keep supporting the leeches of private insurance. got your increase yet? congratulations!
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube So you actually think the fix is government take over? Since when has the federal government ever made something better? You want the same people that brought you FEMA after Katrina, Medicare, Medicade, social security, corn subsidies for ethanol, the War in Iraq, and Cash for Clunkers to run your health. I realize that the private system has flaws, but I vehemently oppose the idea of giving the government control of my health. They suck at everything they take over and make it worse
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 ~ who said anything about "government takeover"? you did, and i guess if you frame it that way, then we can't have a real discussion because you don't even understand how government works. making a bunch of non-sequitur talking points that blames everything on some generic "evil" government just proves you have no idea what you're talking about. but you have no problem with a private insurance company that decides who gets care and what treatment they'll pay for?
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube Well, when someone is assuming control of something that it did not previously have control or jurisdiction, one of many phrases that can be used to describe this transaction of power/authority is taking over. In context, it is the federal government that is assuming control, which would make it a "government takeover". This is not a difficult concept to understand. Furthermore, you failed to even address my point. What in its track record makes you think the gov. can do better?
plymc9 1 year ago
Comment removed
plymc9 1 year ago
@tomitstube Everything about what you're saying is intellectual dishonesty. No one argues that there aren't flaws within the system. There are ways to improve it. But, trading in our system for one that we know doesn't work. All we have to do is look at all the other countries that have tried this and are going bankrupt and provide crappy service as prime example to stay where we are. And my cousins in Canada that have gotten screwed over would agree 100%. A shame what they go through.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 ~ not a single fact in that last comment. vague nonsense.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube Obviously, you're incapable of having intellectual discourse on the subject matter. I don't too much care that we disagree, but if you can't rationally work through clear cut arguments and bring something of substance to your response, but would rather just write off legitimate points, then I guess I'm done. Good luck in your endeavors.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 ~ yeah sure, another comment with zero substance.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@plymc9 all the other countries which are going bankrupt (that's the slogan from the 60's it wasn't true then and it certainly isn't true now) and for quality of service? well let's just say that there have been number of studies and u.s. ranks pretty damn low in every single one of them...
when you say "crappy service" you could look at the numbers how many malpractices happen in the u.s. system (yep you rank #1)
all the studies have shown that even in canada the healthcare quality is better
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Wow, I'm gonna pretend that you didn't just say that. Obviously, you are not looking at the real data. But, the greater question that I ask, is where constitutionally does the federal government have the authority to a.) Regulate health care and/or b.) Mandate citizens to purchase a private company's product or face penalty? I mean, we can go back and forth on studies of effectiveness, but the real point is that it's not constitutional. That is, go find the amendment or clause.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 don't give me that constitution crap, you can't even read the document and i highly doubt that you've even tried.
you treat the constitution as it would be some rules set in stone, news flash, it can be changed...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Obviously I have read it. The constitution changes in so far as it is actually changed. Point being, at what point have you or anybody for that matter followed the actual legal steps to amend the constitution to expand the scope and authority of the federal gov.? As far as I can read, that would put things like health care under the authority of the states because of the 10th amendment. I read the constitution. So once again, point to the amendment and/or clause....
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 I'm not an expert in interpreting the constitution, i think they have legal experts for that, but i guess that doesn't help much because they're all in the conspiracy right?
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Why do I need an expert to interpret what is clearly written? Who said anything of a conspiracy? You've only admitted your ignorance on the subject matter. You should go read your constitution and try to understand what it says for yourself. You would realize the Fed. gov. has not authority to take control of private businesses, nor does it have the authority to require me to buy a product in order to be in good standing with the law. Read before you throw crap out there.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 government still isn't taking control of any private business and yes government has previously forced you to buy a certain product in different cases, for example car insurance
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei The first point, i'll ignore cause I can't actually believe that you'd argue for government HC and then try to act like that isn't a "takeover" of the private sector. Use your brain genius. To the second point on car insurance. Not even the same thing. 1. You are not required to insure yourself, you are required to insure the person that you might potentially hit with your car 2. The government doesn't make you buy a car. So, you don't have to buy insurance. Get it?
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 Oh it's a take over now... mate, tell me a country where there is only the government providing healthcare and please refrain yourself from taking some third world countries as an examples.
i don't really care who you are required to insure, it's not even the point.
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei To the first part, what exactly do you think socialized medicine is? You can use whatever term you want: take over, government run, socialized, universal... it all amounts to the same thing. So, you pick a country that invokes those principles and that's what it is. On the second point, actually it is the point. You don't have to buy car insurance, because you don't have to even buy a car and the insurance you buy isn't even for you. it's to make sure others are covered if you wreck.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 So if government provides a service, it's taking over the private sector? please...
So your argument is that your choice in this matter is not to buy a car?
"im free when i don't buy anything" lol...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei When the fed. gov. decide to set the standard by which all other companies in that industry must abide, while simultaneously starting its own company, that would be a take over. But, I mean what do you think "universal" means?
As for the 2nd point, It would seem to me that you are forgetting that car insurance is mandated by states, not DC, which falls perfectly within the scope of the 10th amendment and is thus, constitutional.
plymc9 1 year ago
@Darusdei Once again, the legal question at hand is whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to provide that service. The answer is, unless it is one of the enumerated powers, set aside in the constitution, then no. Regardless of how noble the service may be in your eyes, it has not authority to move in that matter. So, states mandate car insurance, and unless you add an amendment then HC can't be federally mandated or made "universal".
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 that's just rhetorical nonsense, no lawyers on their toes screaming anything about providing healhcare as illegal guess why? enumerated powers isn't some list of things that the government may do... that's why you have legal experts who interpret it...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Actually it is... That's why you should go back and read the constitution. And for those people that have been fighting, that's specifically the issue at hand. By the way, that's why the Arizona Law got shot down. Because immigration is something that was given as a federal responsibility in the constitution. You've just proven that you have no idea what you're talking about and don't have the intellect to belong in this conversation. Go read the constitution.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 It's not and people who actualy believe that are propably the teaparty nutjobs...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei If a law was assumed constitutional just because it was passed then there would be no need for the Supreme Court; which by the way, rules on laws when their constitutionality is challenged. Once again, you've proven that you intellectually do not belong in this conversation cause you've neither read the constitution nor have demonstrated that you would be able to understand it if you did read it. If I was you, I would just keep my mouth shut, cause you look like an idiot.
plymc9 1 year ago
@plymc9 i'm not pretending to know everything about the subject, you are.
you've only proven that you're extremely emotional about the subject, hence the phrases "constitution doesn't say anything about health care" or the ridiculous "ad hominems"
and yes, it looks pretty childish...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei So if someone points to the constitution, which sets the framework for our country, then that makes me emotional. Once again, you've admitted that you actually don't know what you're talking about. This isn't difficult. As stated before, the same argument that I'm outlining is what the supreme court used to shoot down the Arizona immigration law. So, it is very relevant... and you need to go read the constitution first, before speaking.
plymc9 1 year ago
@Darusdei By the way, I'm not pretending to know about the constitution. I happened to major in political science. But, even if I hadn't, the subject isn't difficult. Read it for yourself. It isn't very long. It's not a difficult read. It's very straight forward. There's the articles... and the bill of rights. The Bill of rights, lists the rights the federal government is expected required to protect, including the 10th Amendment.
plymc9 1 year ago
Nice hair Michelle. Ya friggin' nasty ass whore. If they paid her enough she would LOVE LIBERALS LONG TIME.
omg! that is the nastiest slur I wrote on youtube. She deserves every bit of it.
eqsmooth 1 year ago
@eqsmooth I hate that ugly smelly bitch with the utmost intensity. I cringe when I see her ugly mug on tv.
APINEDO69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@APINEDO69 said, "I hate that ugly smelly bitch with the utmost intensity. I cringe when I see her ugly mug on tv."
.
Aren't you being extremely unfair by comparing ugly smelly bitches with ugly mugs to Michelle Malkin? After all, she's far worse.
p3snooper 1 year ago
OMG, HE LEFT OUT A WORD?
Like Jimmy Carter did when referring to the sign that reads "Bury OBAMACARE with Kennedy"
And there is nothing wrong with weed, I just don't want the socialists getting credit for legalizing it... FREE THE WEED
NoiseCollector 2 years ago
You all think Obama is so kool.... he is going to legalize 12 million border jumpers next year ..just in time to vote for the Dems...(he hopes)...
Now, that is a true sign they know they are in deep manure
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Michelle Malkin is an idiot. She doesn't have a clue what she is writing about, nor does she have a clue what the hell she is talking about.
Tom5467 2 years ago
Michelle Malkin - nature's cure for the 4-hour erection.
withears 2 years ago
No to health care! Let the poor and the middle class suffer from the diseases they brought on themselves! Being poor is a CHOICE made by LAZY PEOPLE! Feed their bodies into a meat grinder!
The upper class are the only TRUE AMERICANS. Everyone else is just leeching off the system.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
10 bucks that you:
1) you don't have a job
2) your not very educated
3) you still live with mommy and daddy.
This "true american" nationalist crap is arrogant and disgusting. your kind is a dying breed.
EyeballKid20 2 years ago
Fake American!
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
awe, aren't you special. don't forget to get tea bagged, or whatever you idiots are doing these days. You people are a whole other level of retarted.
EyeballKid20 2 years ago
Nice post....asshole
Tom5467 2 years ago
Fox also didn't ignore all the warnings about the Freddie/Fannie coming disaster and those who got Frank and Obama approval for multi-million dollar bonus money for cooking the books and then putting them on their campaign staffs and are now telling everyone else they can't have bonus money like the hypocrites they are
They didn't ignore a whole host of things the others did, but that isn't news to you libs because you wallow in filth and think only FREE is news..FDR maggots turned into leeches
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
You know damn well that you cannot argue evolution, or climate change, and every anti-science charge you
ve made has been swatted out of the sky by yours truly. You can declare that I hallucinated a victory, and declare that I really lost but until you BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS across the entire spectrum of assertions you just threw at me, you are still just an OLD FART who believes what he wants to without regard for truth
You just dont want to come back to this page because you got your ass kicked.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Sweet: You need to watch Fox to know what stories they break. They were the only ones who did not ignore Clinton's affairs - the rape of Anita Broadrick - The attacks on Clearance Thomas - The Paula Jones scandals and then Monica and Clinton's depletion of our Cruise Missile stock pile to create a media diversion each time something bad was about to come out about Monica.
They didn't ignore the Chinese money Clinton was taking and the technology he transferred.
The others did that.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
The NEED or Want for medical care goes back to FDR -- The creator of the WELFARE STATE -- and ever since there have been those who suck on the government tit instead of work and expect society as a whole to feed them, burp them, and suckle them in all things.
I don't think you work either.
How many medical bankruptcies in these other countries ... zero? If you call Unemployment typically in the 15 - 19% range as being normal I would say 20% of the country is constantly bankrupt. Nice try.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
You libs thinking Obama care is super need to understand why it would be an economic disaster for the US. You all point to Europe and Canada and how you think it works for them.
THESE COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE OUR POPULATION:
US Population = 350 million
UK == 61M
Germany =82M
France =63M
Canada = 21M
Ireland = 4.4 M
Italy = 60 M
In short 341 Million people total or just under our population for ALL OF EUROPE and it sucks even on that small scale ... Think what will happen on our Size SCALE?
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet if CNN was any more liberal and left leaning it could kiss its own ass without turning its head.
Give me a break. You can't even be THAT blind!
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet. I gave you multiple NON-CONSERVATIVE newspaper sources as well as official record sites and yet you still post these lies and adhere to your flawed concept of reality. You are in total denial of the facts and name calling and accusations of fabrication are only self-frustration on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I have yet to see anything Clinton did that he did not claim to "I NEVER WORKED SO HARD IN MY LIFE ON"
He was right. He never did work hard...
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
I have to get up in 3 hours and drive to Ohio...
I'll catch you later..
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
You will find McCain called for withdrawl along with his "7"... but so did Senator Byrd of WVA - and far more Democrats. Likewise all they got at best early on was resolution which is nothing more than sending a note to the White House asking pretty please
It was Clinton who withdrew within days of the event and not funding cuts that caused the withdrawl. Clinton was more interested in keeping his LEGACY intact and not getting blamed
He sent troops into Bosnia as well They are still there
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Prove it Sweet... Clinton is commander and chief ... he gives the orders not Congress and they have to fund anything he does for at least 6 months before they can refuse to fund it -- Which has NEVER happened ... That cap was intentional ...
You really don't know how the government works do you?
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago 2
Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland.
Those are the facts. They were Mr. Clinton's responsibility, and his alone.
Clinton's Black Hawk History
On Somalia, the ex-president is as mendacious as ever.
Tuesday, August 6, 2002 12:01 A.M. EDT
Wall Street Journal
And that is the FACTS...Clinton
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Mr. Clinton's responsibility in Somalia doesn't stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
More like I got too close to a grenade. I am also missing the lower right leg, but that is life, and I'd do it again.
That force asked for heavy armor--in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles--as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It was a "successful mission," he said, and "proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action."
But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia's warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. force. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: "If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now."
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
The caps are accidental sometimes...I have nerve damage in my hands and my fingers will fire and hit the cap lock....
You will just have to put up with it from time to time. It hasn't passed yet. It is a long way from passage and law.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
NO ONE SAID IT WASN'T GOING TO PASS. When you hear MIDNIGHT VOTE it always means it will pass -- they do the dirty deed under the veil of night. It passed by 5 votes. It still has to go to the HOUSE...and that is where all the seats are in danger next year. They won't be too keen on ratifying it.
Even if they do the next batch coming in will kill it as it will cost another 5.3 million jobs. It isn't set to take place until 2013 after the next Pres election. A lot can happen in that time
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Watch and see if 70 seats don't get upset...
Get the book Black hawk down and read what happened by the people where involved. I don't know what history your reading but a lot of Clinton love is still out there. They covered up all of his extra-martial affairs and his selling secrets and technology to the Chinese and then giving them multi-stage rocket capability they promptly put Nukes on and aimed at us.
Clinton was a real treasonist peach...
Get the book
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
We beat this horse last night. The problem wasn't the banking industry it was the government run/owned Freddie Mac/Fannie May programs that bought these bad loans. The Clinton administration threatened the banks with legal action if they didn't make them and since the government was buying them up the bank wasn't out anything -- otherwise these loans would not have been made.
The Dems including FRANK and OBAMA stood in the way of reform 7 times ... without 61 votes you are screwed..
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
What option wouldn't they allow? I got news for you -- 70 dems will fall next year...just about Guarantee it along with Pelsoi and Ried. They are history. This Obama Care vote... it won't survive after next election and it is a diversion from the economy and the Afgan nightmare.
It takes 61 votes, because of McCains 7 the Republicans didn't have at any time. McCain wanted to president and by playing Maverick he thought he could bully his way to it. The Conservatives voted against him.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet...you were a kid influenced by your teachers...you were barely in high school ... You had no concept of what was really going on in the world at that age and most of what you got was CNN - pro-Clinton news filtered. Make no mistake, it was as I said it was.
Bush could do nothing because the Dems wanted to play games and some of the Repubs along with McCain renegade. They wanted to play coalition building and tied him up for 2 years! It takes 61 votes and they didn't have it.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Clinton did nothing after the first world trade tower bombing and did nothing after the attack on the Cole. He did do a lot to attack the US including initial stages to train the seals in house to house searches to confiscate private firearms which was quickly shot down as soon as it came to light.
He did Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a half a dozen other attacks using the BATF as jack booted thugs. The result was Oklahoma City. Everyone arrested in Ruby Ridge cases were all acquitted in court.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Furthermore, Clinton cut our intelligence agency by nearly half and he stopped all overseas espionage activities which virtually blinded us. I was in Intelligence at that time and I KNOW THIS IS FACT!
It was Clinton who pulled the troops from Mogadesu after Black Hawk down as he was afraid it would make him unpopular not the Republicans -- in fact there was a call to reinforce and Clinton rejected it which makes these rag heads think we are weak and set us up for contempt and future attacks.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet: You are far too young to remember this incident. You are wrong all across the board. The Clinton administration made it impossible and illegal for agencies to share information -- I.E. the CIA could not tell the FBI what it knew about coming attacks so they could be prevented and vica-versa. Likewise, the FBI was not allowed to move on any information under suspicion because Janet Reno said, "Plotting is not a crime. Doing it is a crime" and they had to wait until the act was done.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Thats all the obama ass kissers can do today is blame blame blame. No one will give a shit about bush come next november. Why the fuck do tou keep sayign the repubs could pass something without a dem vote. What the fuck they never had a fillibuster proof senate. There was a dem in office for 6 of 12 years. Wtf are you that much of a kool aid drinking moron. Bush was a real president Obama is a child.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
@Seaworldexists, let me explain basic congress and senate 101. now, to pass a bill you need in some cases a simple majority, in others a 2/3rds. vote(288) in the house in the senate to avoid a filibuster 60.the last 2 years of the bush admin. you only had 236 dems (house), 51 (senate). see how many reps they would have had to get to get to 288. the 6 year dem(clinton) had to compromise with the republicans. bush had a worry free house and senate for 6 years
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago 2
shut the fuck up about this OMFG the health care debate is so old. I heard Pelosi bring up teddy roosevelt today. God. Obama has wasted 2.5 months. Afghanistan is burning to the ground hows that for for paying attention to ground conditions. Hildog is fucking insulting Pakistan as they fight agains al qaeda. You must know where Bin laden is. fuck this president will in 100 years obama will be known as the man who destroyed the Us Superpower status.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
Sea; the health care is a cover up for the failing economy and his failed foreign policies...it is what the media is fixed on and blurting out so we don't see all the other messes this clown and his puppets are creating.
abra-Ka-dabra!
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Haaa! and your still sticking to left wing lies...and C network bias reporting...
WHERE ARE THEY IN IRAQ? They have been pretty much defeated...There are a few around and always will be but Iraq is stable and running itself.
What do you want? Peace and Joy JOy? Heck people kill each other here...just look at Ft. HOOD -- you can never get them all but you can get most of them
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet: Bush didn't founder. He kick them out of Iraq and the Dems did what they always do drag their feet with funding and approval. He was turning his sights on Afganastan which was quite secure up until the last year of the Bush Administration when they smelled OBAMA coming
You can say what you want but Obama bad mouthed the entire war and it was lost up until he finally made a visit and then suddenly the press said, Hey, we really won this one. Killing without nation building is a waste
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Why did rahm emmanuel say that they needed a strong partner in afghanistan? Why is Obama worried about the legitimacy of karzai? He is building a nation. Al Qaeda is hardly relevant. It is the taliban who america is fighting.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
Sweet...Obama hasn't got a clue what to do and you know it.
He is a total loss and man-child in real world game that will be gone in 3 years. He hasn't a prayer to get re-elected and his knee jerkers Pelosi and Reid have about 12 months before their time is up as well.
Conservatism is on the rise and this foolishness will end.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
American health care is dreadful and an economic liability both for employers and individuals. I dont disagree about the problem and nobody seems to. But the dems want to use this premise to claim that anything is better than nothing. their plan will make things worse. It will ensure democrat defeat in 2010. Obama sent 21,000 troops already and will certainly send more though who knows how many. On the campaign trail adn since his election he has maintained afghanistan is the good war.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
OBAMA SENT THEM WITHOUT COMMENT AND QUIETLY.... right after he got his Nobel Peace Prize for telling the world how sorry he was...he was right...HE IS SORRY...
Odd... he gets face time on TV everyday making a speech about something, but says nothing about sending in 2 Brigades -- which by the way IS NOTHING --- the generals asked for 2 divisions....and he sends 2 brigades...Wow! What a knuckle head....
We have high tech bombs...use them
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Maybe. International law is imperfect. Goddamn UN lets africans commit genocide in Rwanda, Sudan and the congo, Serbs eradicate muslims and thats just in a 10 year period. Sometimes in a unipolar world america must do what is right not listen to popular opinion. It doesnt really matter anyway the wars been fought now your man is fighting his war in afghanistan. But foreign policy aside health care reform is shit. Probably gonna pass the house tonight though.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
The war on terror was not declared against a specific country. Which war are you talking about Iraq or afghanistan. Ok if you're not denying the declaration of the war on terror preceded the war in Iraq we agree.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
are you denying bush had declared war on terror before March of 2003.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
Loans they couldnt afford. For all your complaints aobut fat cats the crucial factor in the financial crisis was that mortgage payments stopped coming in. But you cool aid drinkers can never move beyond your stereotyped black and white society. Business bad government good.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated'
Bush 9/20/01. 18 months before war was declared on Iraq
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
Well i'm glad you know some of our history. I basically agree although after WW1 with our victory at vimmy ridge is where I would draw the line of full autonomy.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
read a book sometime not just dailykos. The war on terror was a war on all terror. Otherwise it would have been called a war on al qaeda. Why did the US add the tamil tigers to a list of terrorist groups if it was only agains was Islamists.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
It was all about housing. The major banking problem came in 1999 with a policy of deregulation that clinton supported. He had a veto you idiot the republicans only had 55 senate seats they needed 67 to go above a veto.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
we gained independence in 1867. I never defended europe.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
the war on terror was not a war on al qaeda it was a war on all terrorist networks and groups. Iraq was the perfect country to make the front in the war on terror. Afghanistan during the 1990s was crucial to al qaedas success. Now east africa and pakistan are. The war in Afghanistan is being fought so that a soviet style defeat will not embolden terrorists. America should have left after toppling the taliban. Few casualties and a strong message.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
so was frank, dodd and clinton
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
I agree but this bill is not about cost contanment it is about covering people with prexisting conditions by making it illegal for companies to refuse them. This is a lethal blow to the economy as people have no reason to get insurance before they are sick. Costs will skyrocket as people who have not paid in get all the benefits with none of the cost. You did bring us into the crisis. And you didnt help us gain independence. I aknowledge bush was fundamental in creating the housing bust.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
the dems are now making things much worse. By the way as a canadian i must say we do have an interest in your affairs. Despite effective government management of our economy and the worlds most stable banking sectors you Americans brought us into this finanical crisis. Our domestic affairs are failry irrelevant because so much of our economy depends on a strong USA. Your Afghan adventure has also cost us 132 troops.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
I completely agree with you that the republicans were extremly shitty. Thought the repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999 was supported by Clinton. Bush was an ass who said every american needs a home. And failed to reform the clinton debacles of Fannie and Freddie. The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan added 400billion to the deficit which would have helped but a terror attack from either would have been far more costly. At the end of the day the elephants are dead.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
seems very convient to me. They sure as hell arnt waiting until 2013 to raise taxes for it which is why it is deficit Neutral. Spit on youre domestic policy. YOu're an idiot pelosi is the one making a mockery of domestic policy. If she passes this 2010 will be a terrible year for her.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that was no freudian slip. He meant to say it that way.
YrNameHr 2 years ago
Single payer is fine. Though it hasnt worked in this country as well as elsewhere. If pelosi was trying to pass single payer thatd be fine. This is just the worst of both worlds. A timebomb. Obamas no idiot why do you think he waited until 2013 for the effects of the bill to start. Get a fucking brain I thought you progressives loved people from other countries.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
As long as you progress towards conservatism.
If you aren't a liberal at age 20 you haven't go a heart.
If you are still a liberal at age 30 you haven't got a brain.
You might have time to grow one...lol
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
It could be a large as the universe and I just don't think you could get it there....but hey if you shoot for the moon you never know...Ambition is the first step to conservatism you know.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
sweet: No need. He heard you the first time and I don't think he's worried.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
I don't like the concept of big brother. I'd rather be free.
infinit888 2 years ago
Sweet; I don't have a single payer health care but I do have a single prayer Help center and I just put in another good word for you...
:)
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obama spent a trillion dollars he said would create jobs. It is a lie. There are 3.5 million people out of work. If they wanted to create jobs the government could have given them a $15.00 per hour job for about 1/10 of the trillion dollars.
A trillion is a 1 with 12 zeros. The cost for jobs
$10,920,000,000 or 10.92 billion dollars
Savings: $ 989,080,000,000 or 989 billion dollars
It was about a power grab and control of the economy. And they can't account for the money they spent
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Sweet! What? You telling a Canadian we make our own path? Wow! NOW I AM IMPRESSED there is HOPE for you yet!
I knew you had a thinking brain in there somewhere. Good Going!
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Yeah doesnt take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Pelosi is so dumb its riddiculous. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate based on prexisting conditions. People must buy health care or face a fine. Of course the fine is about 1/4 the cost of having healthcare each year so obviously it is a disaster. We Canadians are probably the best to comment on your affairs. We experience you're culture without being completely immeresed in it.
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pelosi Bill= Economic suicide
Seaworldexists 2 years ago
Sweet: Life would go on without us -- but not without GOD... The Book of David said if there were no life (mankind) the Rocks and mountains would sing the Glory of God. In short, the fact there is creation at all demonstrates the awesome power of God.
And it was correct - Life does not evolve out of Chaos and without some kind of control it would slide back towards it -it was from Chaos this world was Recreated. God said REPLENISH the Earth - or PUT LIFE BACK INTO IT - so it existed b4 us
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
YOu have NO EVIDENCE that there is even a God to begin with, much less some kind of empirical proof that the universe requires its existence to survive.
You say that the rocks and mountains would sing to the glory of God, yet you have NO Evidence other than a tired old book compiled less than 1700 years ago by the Council of Nicaea to combine the warring Pagans and Christians of Rome.
In court we call that Hearsay, not Evidence.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Weed: You exist and that is enough proof to me of a God. Back to SCIENCE:
The probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life is one chance in 10 (229,879 power) and the years required for it evolve would be 10 (119,841 power) years. That is 10 (119,831 power) times the assumed age of the earth.
For it to take place over a 500 billion year period is one chance in 10 (119,701 power) years.
In short mathematically impossible according to SCIENCE! And this isn't cut and pasted
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
My existence only proves MY existence, not GODs.
Your numbers ARE NOT BASED ON ANY PROPOSED VARIABLES. These numbers are tantamount to shooting a bulletproof calculator with a machine gun, hitting X, and declaring the number true.
I KNOW you didn't copy/paste them from anywhere, because those numbers Do not exist.
WHAT ARE THE VARIABLES?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
As far as the tired old book .. Weed I said it was from the book of David and it was used as a metaphor to demonstrate even life without mankind would still suggest there is a God.
David was saying Creation is the Glory of God not man and man was just another creation of God and not the center of all things.
Now why would you want to attack a tired old metaphor? It wasn't written for you and it doesn't change the fact SCIENCE CAN NOT REMOVE GOD from the equation either
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
SCIENCE ISNT TRYING TO REMOVE GOD, YOU ARE SIMPLY NOT PRODUCING EVIDENCE FOR IT.
I attacked your tired old book because you used it to bolster your claim that the universe requires a Creator. It doesn't.
I believe in god not based on objective evidence, but on subjective personal experience.
I would never be stupid enough to say that I can prove God scientifically. My faith is exactly that. Belief without evidence.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I don't intend to prove the existence of God. That is a personal journey. You want to discuss Science as the basis of everything and I gave you SCIENCE which blows your whole belief in evolution and the natural formation of it on its own.
Now you want to change the parameters of the discussion to there is no God.
You lose this debate.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
YOU completely LIED:
1) I NEVER wanted to discuss science as a basis for everything. My point FROM THE BEGINNING is that you are ANTI SCIENCE.
2) I NEVER TRIED to change this debate into the existence or nonexistence of God. YOU DID when you ignorantly and incorrectly asserted that one must believe that there is no God in order to accept evolution.
3) You DOUBLY lied on that one because you know damn well that I'm NOT an atheist, and wouldn't argue against the existence of God.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Weed: as far as discussing science versus God I didn't lie once and anyone who takes the trouble to back read through this stuff will see your attempt at centrifuge for what it is. I said I find it easier to believe in God than evolution nothing more and pointed out much of the Bible and Science say about the same thing.
You topic was evolution beats God, science beats God and no evidence of God. The math says your views aren't sustainable either. Life evolving isn't mathematically probable.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
No, my topic was NOT evolution beats god, and THIS is what you were lying about.
I documented the three lies that you told , and if youtube hadn't disabled the ability to post direct quotes, I would have referenced them directly. Would you like me to refer you to the exact place on which page you lied?
I doubt it.
You were correct in this last post that I am arguing that there is no evidence of god, and so far, you have not provided anything better than "Look at the trees!" and "BALANCE!!!"
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
And no, as I have said numerable times, your math is WRONG. Not only was it proven wrong 50 years ago, it was proven wrong less than a year ago when scientists synthesized Ribonucleotides and rudimentary RNA molecules.
This was done by replicating natural environments, proving not only that it's possible, but that it no longer requires the hand of a divine creator.
Would you like to read the articles?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
You didn't give me any SCIENCE which "Blows my whole belief in evolution and natural formation" out of the water, you gave TWO unsubstantiated claims of numbers which SUPPOSEDLY declare the formation of life to be impossible, WHICH STILL SAYS NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION, EVEN IF THEY WERENT COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Old man, you've completely failed every single point you've put forth.
You still haven't defined what you mean by nature being "Balanced".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Weed: Regardless if you want to accept SCIENCE is not my problem. You can believe whatever you want. Most people do. You can pretend you are well thought out on a topic and you grunt like a monkey in steadfast firmness by accepting one part of science and not the other. If you pick and choose your cherries to believe you make whatever model you want. If you throw all the cherries in there and the ones that don't fit are picked out you have lot of BIG HOLES in your model. YOU LOST man up
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
No, I accept ALL of science, and I am not cherry picking information. You keep claiming that evolution has big holes in it, yet you fail to name ONE.
My position from the beginning of the Climate debate is that you are anti-science, and that is what the subject still is here. -I-am the one who is willing to provide scientific evidence for my claims, if ONLY you would ASK for it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Now, the best part of all of this is that the LONE piece of "Evidence" that you've tried to bring up was a shaky piece of outdated, unsubstantiated, baseless, and DEBUNKED supposed mathematical garbage which argues against the FORMATION of life, which if you knew anything about the subject is NOT EVOLUTION.
You're referring to the subject of ABIOGENESIS, which is akin to, but not apart of Evolution, which is the study of the changes in life that is ALREADY PRESENT.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
So far you have failed to put any holes in the Theory of evolution, and one half assed attempt at the Theory of Abiogenesis all the while vindicating my point over and over. You are an anti-science prick who argues from authority over subjects he knows nothing about. You speak that you "know enough" about evolution, yet dont even know that it is a separate subject from the one you're arguing against.
If you have scientific empirical evidence
for divine creation, by all means Share it!
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Now, because you were too much of an incompetent old vagina to actually meet my arguments at all, much less on a public forum, I'm going to post everything you said here so everyone can see the splinters of argument that YOU are holding onto.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Have fun weed... this debate is over for the night and you struck out.
Not bad for a senile old fart who was too stupid to know anything. You should have went to my website and clicked the links and found the one on idle thoughts.
Facts are facts and the numbers don't add up -- it is easier to conceive a God than just biological accident.
Never underestimate us old turds...we taught you what you think you know...lol
Been fun, but YOU LOSE.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Snider, declaring that you won is the cheesiest cop out of any debate EVER.
Lets review, shall we?
Despite the fact that you never asked for it, I showed you several examples of Evolution, and speciation in action, and the entirety of your argument consisted of throwing out bullshit unfounded numbers that declare the impossibility of LIFE FORMING, not EVOLVING.
You do know that the Theory of Evolution does not speak to the origins of ANYTHING, including the origin of life, right?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Well, now I found one of your posts finally and finally this thread started to let me post to it again. I must have really stepped on some liberal toes.
I don't argue with anyone. I might debate them, but the facts are I must have turned you inside out for you to be so spastic. All this name CALLING REALLY SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.
A lot of noise with no facts. You want to believe you are evolved slug slime then I'll agree with you -- you are stoned slug slime.
Try less pot and more brain
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
Again, you demonstrate that you cannot argue facts, all you can do is declare that I smoke too much pot and that you Won.
In internet terms, anyone can see that you lost.
BTW, you didn't give me hard mathematics. Thats what I've been telling you. You don't even know what equation he used , you just accept it because it supports your POV.
You declare that I have a lot of noise and no facts?
I have given you nothing but facts, to every halfassed argument you posed. ASK ME FOR EVIDENCE.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Unlike you, I never supplanted my insults for real arguments. I have given you fact after fact after fact, along WITH insults, but you have not given me one single fact. You've given me an equation you dont even understand to prove wrong something we werent even arguing about. NOW all you can do is try to discredit me by saying I smoke pot.
....you are stoned slug slime...
And you're a retarded old fart who's living off of the Social Security I'm paying, while not even understanding the debate.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
And what's even more amusing is that the best argument you can throw at me is "Do something more constructive than trying to keep America stoned" as if you know me, and you've seen me doing nothing but that.
Who brought up marijuana? You did.
The difference between you and me is that EVERY argument I have made against you has been based off of something you said, but the only arguments you have against me are ones that I dont even support.
I'm not an atheist. I don't want the entire US stoned.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"Facts are facts, you cant beat math"
You never supplied me with any math, no matter how much you want to keep declaring that you have.
You showed me what ONE GUY said the answer to an equation was. YOU dont even know the equation that he used, the variables, or if he was even accurate in his computation.
AND YOU STILL CANT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE FORMULA IN QUESTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.
Anyone reading this can see that you've not held up your end of the Debate.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"Try less pot and more brain "
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Here's a hint. When you're criticizing someone's intelligence, being grammatically incorrect doesn't prove your point.
"Try less pot and more research."
"Try less pot, and more learning."
"Try to smoke less pot, and read more books."
If you're going to make a jab at intelligence, don't want until the end of your 500 Character limit to do it.
Oh, and BTW I never said I evolved from slug slime. Once again, you don't even understand the subject.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
You were on track until the pot attack... anyone who doesn't smoke it is an asshole (just my observation). Don't be like the liberals and try and force rules on us or you may be labeled conservative (which is the new N-word, not socialist). Stick with libertarian, they have not blasphemed our good name yet...
NoiseCollector 2 years ago
No, you did EXCEPTIONALLY bad for a senile old fart. In NO way did you win the argument.
The difference between the two of us is that you're the only one here stupid enough to try to declare victory when you cant even make a comeback to my rebuttals.
Here's a tip old man:
On the internet, when you declare yourself the winner, you lose half of your credibility. Only the audience can decide who won.
I do have to commend you on your typing speed though. What are you, 65-75 WPM?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Did you enjoy writing to yourself? I had a bet you would fire off several comments to salvage your point and call me something along the life of a failed senile old fart.
You constantly shift the parameters in every discussion trying to find a splinter you can hang onto. The topic was not about balance it was about evolution and the improbability of it and life evolving on its own. I gave you SCIENCE mathematical facts which destroyed your theories. It is not statistically possible.
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
About "Shifting parameters" you then say that the topic was not about Balance, yet you are the one who brought balance up to bolster your point. YOU are the one shifting parameters here, I'm the one meeting and surpassing all of your arguments.
You start with "Perfect balance" then "Look at the trees" then "genetic breaks" then "Cats dont evolve into dogs" then then "Some outdated mathematical formula said NO (to abiogenesis)"
You introduced all of these yet I'm holding onto splinters?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"OK...whatever you say...You have been smoking way too much pot and it is affecting your judgments. You failed and you know you failed so own up to it instead of coming back 3 days later all paranoid from your recent binge and claim you hallucinated some victory....
Find something more useful in life than believing you are Ape Man of the Nanook and trying to legalize something that doesn't need to be in society. It is bad enough we have a lot of legal drunks let alone legal stoners"
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Now, the beautiful part of this is that I have laid down evidence and proven exactly what I sought to, and the best arguments youi have against me AD HOMINEM attacks, which are LOGICAL FALLACIES.
You're supplanting the argument that I am a stoner in place of addressing the arguments that I actually made.
If you want to SHIFT THE PARAMETERS of our conversation again, I'll prove my point a THIRD time by showing how anti-science you are concerning Weed.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Well sweet.. you can say parts of the Bible were taken from other stories because they found written versions in per-Hebrew cultures but you know the funny thing about cultures is not all left written records and just because one record is older doesn't mean it is not from the same event.
EVERY RACE including the most primitive all have an oral tradition of a global flood -- odd --
Truth is truth regardless where it came from.
It's possible it came from Bible foundations - the returned
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
No, NOT every race. Only Coastal cultures have flood myths. Inland cultures don't.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Try not to get into the argument of whether or not God exists when arguing evolution. Thats not the point you're arguing.
At least I dont, but I'm a deist, so I wouldn't argue that god doesn't exist.
That being said, the argument from intelligent design is completely devoid of evidence, and I would never argue that there is any kind of evidence for god.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Weed when one looks at people like you you are right intelligent design is void.
To say it doesn't exist is foolish. Life is in balance... The world is in balance... things left to their own devices always dissolve towards Chaos.
For life to form as we know it - a very strict set of events have to be there -- not too much or little gravity -- there has to be a moon of the right size to slow down global rotation - water - aptmosphere - right distance from a star -- temperature - and Carbon
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago
I could list thousands of instances of "Stupid design", like human eyes being wired backward, etc.
To declare nature to be "Not chaotic" is to look at it from a completely biased point of view. Nature is a dance between chaos and order.
You need to provide more evidence for intelligent design than "Look at the trees!"
If god designed the universe, he clearly had a lot more fun making galaxies and supernovas than life....
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
God does what God does Weed and it is written for his own pleasure. Nature left unchecked would fall into destruction but what we call nature and instinct is nothing more than the whisper of what I call God which keeps it in balance.
Genetic breaks that cause backward wired eyes are exactly that -- genetic breaks -- toxins in the water such as natural mercury -- someone getting kicked in the balls -- a fall -- a disease -- lousy diet ... They are encoded Environmental causes not God
TheDukeSnider 2 years ago