>> >> >>On Oct 29, 6:45=A0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: >> >> >>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >><mercy snip> Why the FUCK do you not clean this shit up?
>> >> >>Oh, wait; I know why... if it's long, then there's a greater chance no >> >> >>one will read your bullshit.
>> >> >Oh wait...I know why, you said something really stupid and hope no one >> >> >will go back and look!
>> >> >>> >> >Don't just list them, you clown. Tell me what "reforms" they >> >> >>> >> >institute.
>> >> >>> >> No. =3DA0They are bills you claim don't exist. =3DA0They do. =3DA0You'= >> >> >>re a liar=3D >> >> >>> > or >> >> >>> >> an ill-informed fool Milt, which is it?
>> >> >>> >I said NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A >> >> >>> >REPUBLICAN.
>> >> >>> >I stand by that.
>> >> >>> Of course you do. =A0You have no choice. =A0To admit you're wrong after >> >> >>> making so many errors would not sit well with your self-delusionsal >> >> >>> perceptions of yourself.
>> >> >>I make errors occasionally. But most of the ones you point out are >> >> >>manufactured. Like this one.
>> >> >It is? So when you claimed that "NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL >> >> >HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A REPUBLICAN" what did you mean, exactly?
>> >> >I've posted several. You said you read them when they came out. One >> >> >could easily assume your a fool, a liar, or both.
>> >> I'm betting on both. Miltie merely defined "reform" in his own way so >> >> he could make his "argument".
>> >I didn't redefine "reform," you fucktard. YOU DID.
>> Making insurance more affordable to those who can't afford it *is* a >> form of reform -- just not the kind you would like to see.
>There are nearly 50 million people without insurance in this country, >and only about 4-5 million don't buy it because they can't afford it.
Cite?
>It's estimated that tax credits would encourage about one third of >those to get insurance
Cite or are you making it up as you go along?
>. Let's be kind, and say that insures 2 million >more people. Since the uninsured are the main reason premiums have >more than doubled and will double again in another ten years, and >given that doubling the premiums again will result in more people not >having insurance, as more and more employers drop it from their >benefits package, where's the fucking "reform" in covering 2 million >our of 50 million now, when the net result will probably be about >80-90 million in ten years?
You seem to be making up numbers as you go along. As I've said previously, just because *your* definition of "reform" doesn't include what's in the Republican-sponsored bills, doesn't mean that they didn't offer any reform at all (as you claimed).
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot >> >>> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>> >>> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
>> >>> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your >> >>> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis >> >>> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that >> >>> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of >> >>> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>> >>> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and >> >>> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been >> >>> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called >> >>> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before >> >>> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and >> >>> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word >> >>> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local >> >>> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or >> >>> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
>> >>> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
>> >>> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of >> >>> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
>> >>> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated >> >>> >> >>> here.
>> >>> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says >> >>> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
>> >>> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that >> >>> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>> >>> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've >> >>> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>> >>> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you >> >>> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>> >>> >> And Miltie flees again...
>> >>> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>> >>> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I >> >>> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this >> >>> >one.
>> >>> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as >> >>> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
>> >>> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>> >>> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want >> >>> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me >> >>> dishonest for it.
>> >>Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote >> >>yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your >> >>message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I >> >>wasn't going to be around much.
>> >>You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather >> >>admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>> >Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>>> >> >> >> No I didn't Milt. =3D3D3DA0It was you:
>>> >> >> >> On 10/15/09 you typed:
>>> >> >> >> "Everyone in this country, without exception, needs resources fo= >>r f=3D >>> >ood >>> >> >> >> and shelter. If you have two political parties; one that will he= >>lp >>> >> >> >> provide those basic resources, and one who will take them away, = >>and >>> >> >> >> you vote for the one who will take them away, because he also be= >>lie=3D >>> >ves >>> >> >> >> only a man and a woman can get married, you are voting against y= >>our >>> >> >> >> interests. Period. " =3D3D3DA0--Milt Shook
>>> >> >> >> Now surely you can come up with a quote of mine that predates th= >>at >>> >> >> >> can't you Milt? =3D3D3DA0You wouldn't be lying again would you M= >>ilt?
>>> >> >> >It's a fucking hypothetical, you fucktard,
>>> >> >> It is? =3D3DA0Funny how that "hypothetical", as you call it, is the= >> whol=3D >>> >e >>> >> >> basis for your article.
>>> >> >No it's not.
>>> >Note the dodge. Does that mean you admit you don't understand my main >>> >argument?
>>> No dodge Milt. =A0I get tired of answering the same lame question over >>> and over.
>>Again demonstrating that lack of an irony gene.
>>You NEVER get tired of pretending to answer the same questions over >>and over. For shit's sake, Jeffrey; it's your entire shtick. You keep >>offering the same lame ass answers over and over again, until we're >>forced to shake or heads and walk away.
>>You STILL have not listed the alleged reforms of the $2.7 trillion >>health insurance system that are contained in those reform bills.
>I did for one of the bills listed that you said never even existed >Milt. Just because you don't like the reform they offer doesn't mean >they don't offer reform.
>On Nov 1, 7:16 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> >wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:36:19 -0800, Phlip wrote: >> >> >> Not a sock puppet any more than you are (are you?). Prove that the >> >> >> mess in California was caused by Republicans.
>> >> >Republicans ran the state from 1982-1998, when utility deregulation >> >> >was passed and poorly enacted.
>> >> Which caused California's budget crisis how exactly? What party ran >> >> the state after 1998 and why didn't they avert this disaster?
>> > The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats >> > couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
>> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because >> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a >> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address >> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash >> and be replaced by a corporate fascism.
>Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a >dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
What are you claiming I wrote? BTW, you never did answer how a state that is much smaller than California that gets back less (percentage-wise) from the feds doesn't seem to have the same financial problems as does California. If your response is that they can raise taxes dramatically much easier than California, then show us the state that did exactly that.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
>> >> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot >> >> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
>> >> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>> >> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
>> >> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your >> >> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis >> >> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that >> >> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of >> >> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>> >> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up >> >> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>> >> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and >> >> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been >> >> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>> >> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called >> >> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before >> >> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and >> >> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word >> >> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local >> >> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or >> >> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
>> >> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
>> >> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of >> >> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
>> >> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated >> >> >> >>> here.
>> >> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says >> >> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
>> >> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that >> >> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>> >> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've >> >> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>> >> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you >> >> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>> >> >> And Miltie flees again...
>> >> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>> >> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I >> >> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this >> >> >one.
>> >> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as >> >> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
>> >> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>> >> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want >> >> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me >> >> dishonest for it.
>> >Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote >> >yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your >> >message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I >> >wasn't going to be around much.
>> >You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather >> >admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>> Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>>> Phlip commented: ---- >>>> The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats >>>> couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
>>> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because >>> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a >>> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address >>> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash >>> and be replaced by a corporate fascism. >> Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a >> dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
> What are you claiming I wrote?
Why do you have to ask? Are you easily confused?
> If your response is that they can raise taxes dramatically much > easier than California
<baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >"nobrainer" was whimpering again for attention from:
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote, in reply to:
>>> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" replied to:
>>>> Phlip commented: >---- >>>>> The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats >>>>> couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
>>>> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because >>>> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a >>>> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address >>>> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash >>>> and be replaced by a corporate fascism. >>> Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a >>> dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
>> What are you claiming I wrote?
>Why do you have to ask? Are you easily confused?
Not at all. It appears Miltie was attempting to attribute to me something I never wrote.
>> If your response is that they can raise taxes dramatically much >> easier than California
>It wasn't, despite your silly evasions..
You're right...Miltie had no actual response other than to repeat himself and swear like a child.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
> >> >>> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your > >> >>> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis > >> >>> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that > >> >>> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of > >> >>> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
> >> >>> >> >>> Irony anyone?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been > >> >>> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
> >> >>> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called > >> >>> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before > >> >>> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and > >> >>> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word > >> >>> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local > >> >>> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or > >> >>> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
> >> >>> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
> >> >>> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of > >> >>> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
> >> >>> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated > >> >>> >> >>> here.
> >> >>> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says > >> >>> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
> >> >>> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that > >> >>> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
> >> >>> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've > >> >>> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
> >> >>> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you > >> >>> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
> >> >>> >> And Miltie flees again...
> >> >>> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
> >> >>> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I > >> >>> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this > >> >>> >one.
> >> >>> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as > >> >>> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
> >> >>> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
> >> >>> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want > >> >>> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me > >> >>> dishonest for it.
> >> >>Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote > >> >>yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your > >> >>message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I > >> >>wasn't going to be around much.
> >> >>You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather > >> >>admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
> >> >Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:54:17 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >On Nov 1, 7:16 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:36:19 -0800, Phlip wrote: > >> >> >> Not a sock puppet any more than you are (are you?). Prove that the > >> >> >> mess in California was caused by Republicans.
> >> >> >Republicans ran the state from 1982-1998, when utility deregulation > >> >> >was passed and poorly enacted.
> >> >> Which caused California's budget crisis how exactly? What party ran > >> >> the state after 1998 and why didn't they avert this disaster?
> >> > The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats > >> > couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
> >> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because > >> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a > >> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address > >> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash > >> and be replaced by a corporate fascism.
> >Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a > >dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
> What are you claiming I wrote? BTW, you never did answer how a state > that is much smaller than California that gets back less > (percentage-wise) from the feds doesn't seem to have the same > financial problems as does California.
Dumbass. Zepp and I both explained it to you repeatedly. Please stop lying.
> If your response is that they > can raise taxes dramatically much easier than California, then show us > the state that did exactly that.
That wasn't the answer, you fucking moron. That's what a simple-minded fool would come up with. Go check and see where Zepp and I BOTH explained it to you...
> <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > >"nobrainer" was whimpering again for attention from:
> >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote, in reply to:
> >>> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" replied to:
> >>>> Phlip commented: > >---- > >>>>> The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats > >>>>> couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
> >>>> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because > >>>> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a > >>>> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address > >>>> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash > >>>> and be replaced by a corporate fascism. > >>> Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a > >>> dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
> >> What are you claiming I wrote?
> >Why do you have to ask? Are you easily confused?
> Not at all. It appears Miltie was attempting to attribute to me > something I never wrote.
> >> If your response is that they can raise taxes dramatically much > >> easier than California
> >It wasn't, despite your silly evasions..
> You're right...Miltie had no actual response other than to repeat > himself and swear like a child.
Fuck you. Zepp and I BOTH answered your silly ass, and you responded, so I know you saw it.
> >> >> >>On Oct 29, 6:45=A0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: > >> >> >>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >><mercy snip> Why the FUCK do you not clean this shit up?
> >> >> >>Oh, wait; I know why... if it's long, then there's a greater chance no > >> >> >>one will read your bullshit.
> >> >> >Oh wait...I know why, you said something really stupid and hope no one > >> >> >will go back and look!
> >> >> >>> >> >Don't just list them, you clown. Tell me what "reforms" they > >> >> >>> >> >institute.
> >> >> >>> >> No. =3DA0They are bills you claim don't exist. =3DA0They do. =3DA0You'= > >> >> >>re a liar=3D > >> >> >>> > or > >> >> >>> >> an ill-informed fool Milt, which is it?
> >> >> >>> >I said NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A > >> >> >>> >REPUBLICAN.
> >> >> >>> >I stand by that.
> >> >> >>> Of course you do. =A0You have no choice. =A0To admit you're wrong after > >> >> >>> making so many errors would not sit well with your self-delusionsal > >> >> >>> perceptions of yourself.
> >> >> >>I make errors occasionally. But most of the ones you point out are > >> >> >>manufactured. Like this one.
> >> >> >It is? So when you claimed that "NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL > >> >> >HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A REPUBLICAN" what did you mean, exactly?
> >> >> >I've posted several. You said you read them when they came out. One > >> >> >could easily assume your a fool, a liar, or both.
> >> >> I'm betting on both. Miltie merely defined "reform" in his own way so > >> >> he could make his "argument".
> >> >I didn't redefine "reform," you fucktard. YOU DID.
> >> Making insurance more affordable to those who can't afford it *is* a > >> form of reform -- just not the kind you would like to see.
> >There are nearly 50 million people without insurance in this country, > >and only about 4-5 million don't buy it because they can't afford it.
> Cite?
Fuck off, you childisn prick.
> >It's estimated that tax credits would encourage about one third of > >those to get insurance
> Cite or are you making it up as you go along?
No, fucktard.
Check the CBO analyses of all of the bills your butt buddy Jeffrey presented. Do you even know where to find them?
Does your mommy still hold your hand when you cross the street...
> >. Let's be kind, and say that insures 2 million > >more people. Since the uninsured are the main reason premiums have > >more than doubled and will double again in another ten years, and > >given that doubling the premiums again will result in more people not > >having insurance, as more and more employers drop it from their > >benefits package, where's the fucking "reform" in covering 2 million > >our of 50 million now, when the net result will probably be about > >80-90 million in ten years?
> You seem to be making up numbers as you go along. As I've said > previously, just because *your* definition of "reform" doesn't include > what's in the Republican-sponsored bills, doesn't mean that they > didn't offer any reform at all (as you claimed).
I don't write dictionaries. I didn't come up with the definition for reform; I just use it.
> >>> >> >> >> No I didn't Milt. =3D3D3DA0It was you:
> >>> >> >> >> On 10/15/09 you typed:
> >>> >> >> >> "Everyone in this country, without exception, needs resources fo= > >>r f=3D > >>> >ood > >>> >> >> >> and shelter. If you have two political parties; one that will he= > >>lp > >>> >> >> >> provide those basic resources, and one who will take them away, = > >>and > >>> >> >> >> you vote for the one who will take them away, because he also be= > >>lie=3D > >>> >ves > >>> >> >> >> only a man and a woman can get married, you are voting against y= > >>our > >>> >> >> >> interests. Period. " =3D3D3DA0--Milt Shook
> >>> >> >> >> Now surely you can come up with a quote of mine that predates th= > >>at > >>> >> >> >> can't you Milt? =3D3D3DA0You wouldn't be lying again would you M= > >>ilt?
> >>> >> >> >It's a fucking hypothetical, you fucktard,
> >>> >> >> It is? =3D3DA0Funny how that "hypothetical", as you call it, is the= > >> whol=3D > >>> >e > >>> >> >> basis for your article.
> >>> >> >No it's not.
> >>> >Note the dodge. Does that mean you admit you don't understand my main > >>> >argument?
> >>> No dodge Milt. =A0I get tired of answering the same lame question over > >>> and over.
> >>Again demonstrating that lack of an irony gene.
> >>You NEVER get tired of pretending to answer the same questions over > >>and over. For shit's sake, Jeffrey; it's your entire shtick. You keep > >>offering the same lame ass answers over and over again, until we're > >>forced to shake or heads and walk away.
> >>You STILL have not listed the alleged reforms of the $2.7 trillion > >>health insurance system that are contained in those reform bills.
> >I did for one of the bills listed that you said never even existed > >Milt. Just because you don't like the reform they offer doesn't mean > >they don't offer reform.
> That's *exactly* how Miltie thinks...
Words mean things. The word "reform" has a specific meaning. Go look it up instead of pretending to know what it means.
What the Republicans have offered does NOT meet the actual definition of reform.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
>> >> >>> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your >> >> >>> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis >> >> >>> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that >> >> >>> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of >> >> >>> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>> >> >>> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
>> >> >>> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of >> >> >>> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
>> >> >>> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated >> >> >>> >> >>> here.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says >> >> >>> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
>> >> >>> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that >> >> >>> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>> >> >>> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've >> >> >>> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>> >> >>> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you >> >> >>> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>> >> >>> >> And Miltie flees again...
>> >> >>> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>> >> >>> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I >> >> >>> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this >> >> >>> >one.
>> >> >>> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as >> >> >>> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
>> >> >>> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>> >> >>> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want >> >> >>> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me >> >> >>> dishonest for it.
>> >> >>Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote >> >> >>yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your >> >> >>message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I >> >> >>wasn't going to be around much.
>> >> >>You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather >> >> >>admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>> >> >Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>> >>> >> >> >> No I didn't Milt. =3D3D3DA0It was you:
>> >>> >> >> >> On 10/15/09 you typed:
>> >>> >> >> >> "Everyone in this country, without exception, needs resources fo= >> >>r f=3D >> >>> >ood >> >>> >> >> >> and shelter. If you have two political parties; one that will he= >> >>lp >> >>> >> >> >> provide those basic resources, and one who will take them away, = >> >>and >> >>> >> >> >> you vote for the one who will take them away, because he also be= >> >>lie=3D >> >>> >ves >> >>> >> >> >> only a man and a woman can get married, you are voting against y= >> >>our >> >>> >> >> >> interests. Period. " =3D3D3DA0--Milt Shook
>> >>> >> >> >> Now surely you can come up with a quote of mine that predates th= >> >>at >> >>> >> >> >> can't you Milt? =3D3D3DA0You wouldn't be lying again would you M= >> >>ilt?
>> >>> >> >> >It's a fucking hypothetical, you fucktard,
>> >>> >> >> It is? =3D3DA0Funny how that "hypothetical", as you call it, is the= >> >> whol=3D >> >>> >e >> >>> >> >> basis for your article.
>> >>> >> >No it's not.
>> >>> >Note the dodge. Does that mean you admit you don't understand my main >> >>> >argument?
>> >>> No dodge Milt. =A0I get tired of answering the same lame question over >> >>> and over.
>> >>Again demonstrating that lack of an irony gene.
>> >>You NEVER get tired of pretending to answer the same questions over >> >>and over. For shit's sake, Jeffrey; it's your entire shtick. You keep >> >>offering the same lame ass answers over and over again, until we're >> >>forced to shake or heads and walk away.
>> >>You STILL have not listed the alleged reforms of the $2.7 trillion >> >>health insurance system that are contained in those reform bills.
>> >I did for one of the bills listed that you said never even existed >> >Milt. Just because you don't like the reform they offer doesn't mean >> >they don't offer reform.
>> That's *exactly* how Miltie thinks...
>Words mean things. The word "reform" has a specific meaning. Go look >it up instead of pretending to know what it means.
>On Nov 2, 1:43 pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:36:57 -0600, Baron_Mind
>> <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >"nobrainer" was whimpering again for attention from:
>> >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote, in reply to:
>> >>> "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" replied to:
>> >>>> Phlip commented: >> >---- >> >>>>> The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats >> >>>>> couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
>> >>>> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because >> >>>> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a >> >>>> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address >> >>>> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash >> >>>> and be replaced by a corporate fascism. >> >>> Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a >> >>> dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
>> >> What are you claiming I wrote?
>> >Why do you have to ask? Are you easily confused?
>> Not at all. It appears Miltie was attempting to attribute to me >> something I never wrote.
>> >> If your response is that they can raise taxes dramatically much >> >> easier than California
>> >It wasn't, despite your silly evasions..
>> You're right...Miltie had no actual response other than to repeat >> himself and swear like a child.
>Fuck you. Zepp and I BOTH answered your silly ass, and you responded, >so I know you saw it.
More childish swear words (how typical). You answered by repeating yourself and had no actual "response".
>On Nov 2, 8:29 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:54:17 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Nov 1, 7:16 pm, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> >> >wrote: >> >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:36:19 -0800, Phlip wrote: >> >> >> >> Not a sock puppet any more than you are (are you?). Prove that the >> >> >> >> mess in California was caused by Republicans.
>> >> >> >Republicans ran the state from 1982-1998, when utility deregulation >> >> >> >was passed and poorly enacted.
>> >> >> Which caused California's budget crisis how exactly? What party ran >> >> >> the state after 1998 and why didn't they avert this disaster?
>> >> > The standard reaction - Republican's sabotaged it, but Democrats >> >> > couldn't fix the sabotage so they get the blame...
>> >> Whoever posted that doesn't understand that nobody runs the state because >> >> of the supermajority requirement in the legislature. Democrats have a >> >> majority, but they can't get any needed legislation through to address >> >> the crisis, because radical Republicans would rather see the system crash >> >> and be replaced by a corporate fascism.
>> >Of course, "nobody" wrote that. Even after I explained this to him a >> >dozen times, he still doesn't get it. He's not a bright little boy...
>> What are you claiming I wrote? BTW, you never did answer how a state >> that is much smaller than California that gets back less >> (percentage-wise) from the feds doesn't seem to have the same >> financial problems as does California.
>Dumbass. Zepp and I both explained it to you repeatedly. Please stop >lying.
I meant of the above, what did I write which is what you implied?
>> >> >> >>On Oct 29, 6:45=A0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: >> >> >> >>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >><mercy snip> Why the FUCK do you not clean this shit up?
>> >> >> >>Oh, wait; I know why... if it's long, then there's a greater chance no >> >> >> >>one will read your bullshit.
>> >> >> >Oh wait...I know why, you said something really stupid and hope no one >> >> >> >will go back and look!
>> >> >> >>> >> >Don't just list them, you clown. Tell me what "reforms" they >> >> >> >>> >> >institute.
>> >> >> >>> >> No. =3DA0They are bills you claim don't exist. =3DA0They do. =3DA0You'= >> >> >> >>re a liar=3D >> >> >> >>> > or >> >> >> >>> >> an ill-informed fool Milt, which is it?
>> >> >> >>> >I said NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A >> >> >> >>> >REPUBLICAN.
>> >> >> >>> >I stand by that.
>> >> >> >>> Of course you do. =A0You have no choice. =A0To admit you're wrong after >> >> >> >>> making so many errors would not sit well with your self-delusionsal >> >> >> >>> perceptions of yourself.
>> >> >> >>I make errors occasionally. But most of the ones you point out are >> >> >> >>manufactured. Like this one.
>> >> >> >It is? So when you claimed that "NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL >> >> >> >HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A REPUBLICAN" what did you mean, exactly?
>> >> >> >I've posted several. You said you read them when they came out. One >> >> >> >could easily assume your a fool, a liar, or both.
>> >> >> I'm betting on both. Miltie merely defined "reform" in his own way so >> >> >> he could make his "argument".
>> >> >I didn't redefine "reform," you fucktard. YOU DID.
>> >> Making insurance more affordable to those who can't afford it *is* a >> >> form of reform -- just not the kind you would like to see.
>> >There are nearly 50 million people without insurance in this country, >> >and only about 4-5 million don't buy it because they can't afford it.
>> Cite?
>Fuck off, you childisn prick.
Translation: I can't support what I say so I will resort to childish swearing.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot >>> >> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>>> >> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
>>> >> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your >>> >> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis >>> >> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that >>> >> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of >>> >> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>>> >> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and >>> >> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been >>> >> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called >>> >> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before >>> >> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and >>> >> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word >>> >> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local >>> >> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or >>> >> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
>>> >> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
>>> >> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of >>> >> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
>>> >> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated >>> >> >> >>> here.
>>> >> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says >>> >> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
>>> >> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that >>> >> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>>> >> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've >>> >> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>>> >> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you >>> >> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>>> >> >> And Miltie flees again...
>>> >> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>>> >> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I >>> >> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this >>> >> >one.
>>> >> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as >>> >> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
>>> >> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>>> >> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want >>> >> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me >>> >> dishonest for it.
>>> >Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote >>> >yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your >>> >message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I >>> >wasn't going to be around much.
>>> >You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather >>> >admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>>> Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever hear of "Google"? Did your buddies always do your homework for >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you while growing up?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that California was in trouble largely because of the money they >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't get back from the feds. *That* is the cite that has not been >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> provided.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up to help out the red states federally simply went into their >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states budget, they would be fine. Hell they would have a surplus.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you missed that?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it all. I can clearly see how much goes out. The claim >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single factor is the reason for California's budget disaster >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> remains unsupported.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how do you cite an opinion?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base your opinons on fact? That explains a lot >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around here.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks around here apparently).
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right wingers, base your opinions on your >>> >> >>> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about what should be. There is no factual basis >>> >> >>> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating and constant insistence that >>> >> >>> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you yourself make statements of >>> >> >>> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question for him is how come the states that get even >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than California?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> "Created or saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword to make people feel better about having been >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion. How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy. States usually know about what are called >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which can actually be as few as 15 people) before >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips. If they get a mass layoff notice, and >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they know that way. Plus, when they get word >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial trouble, often state and local >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try to intercede, offering tax abatement or >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the jobs.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what actually happened is where again???
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact, the BLS puts out a survey of >>> >> >>> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per month.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> As they relate to "created or saved"? Not that you've demonstrated >>> >> >>> >> >>> here.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and me. When someone here says >>> >> >>> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look it up to find the details.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them. Maybe it's more of those facts that >>> >> >>> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>>> >> >>> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that says pretty much what I've >>> >> >>> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>>> >> >>> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your ranting here. If you >>> >> >>> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>>> >> >>> >> And Miltie flees again...
>>> >> >>> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>>> >> >>> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after Tuesday. And I >>> >> >>> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote this >>> >> >>> >one.
>>> >> >>> Nice try. The message you ran away from was posted on the same day as >>> >> >>> the other messages you responded to. No dishonesty on *my* part.
>>> >> >>> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>>> >> >>> This was posted well after the message you avoided. Now if you want >>> >> >>> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me >>> >> >>> dishonest for it.
>>> >> >>Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote >>> >> >>yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your >>> >> >>message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I >>> >> >>wasn't going to be around much.
>>> >> >>You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather >>> >> >>admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>>> >> >Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>>> >>> >> >> >> No I didn't Milt. =3D3D3DA0It was you:
>>> >>> >> >> >> On 10/15/09 you typed:
>>> >>> >> >> >> "Everyone in this country, without exception, needs resources fo= >>> >>r f=3D >>> >>> >ood >>> >>> >> >> >> and shelter. If you have two political parties; one that will he= >>> >>lp >>> >>> >> >> >> provide those basic resources, and one who will take them away, = >>> >>and >>> >>> >> >> >> you vote for the one who will take them away, because he also be= >>> >>lie=3D >>> >>> >ves >>> >>> >> >> >> only a man and a woman can get married, you are voting against y= >>> >>our >>> >>> >> >> >> interests. Period. " =3D3D3DA0--Milt Shook
>>> >>> >> >> >> Now surely you can come up with a quote of mine that predates th= >>> >>at >>> >>> >> >> >> can't you Milt? =3D3D3DA0You wouldn't be lying again would you M= >>> >>ilt?
>>> >>> >> >> >It's a fucking hypothetical, you fucktard,
>>> >>> >> >> It is? =3D3DA0Funny how that "hypothetical", as you call it, is the= >>> >> whol=3D >>> >>> >e >>> >>> >> >> basis for your article.
>>> >>> >> >No it's not.
>>> >>> >Note the dodge. Does that mean you admit you don't understand my main >>> >>> >argument?
>>> >>> No dodge Milt. =A0I get tired of answering the same lame question over >>> >>> and over.
>>> >>Again demonstrating that lack of an irony gene.
>>> >>You NEVER get tired of pretending to answer the same questions over >>> >>and over. For shit's sake, Jeffrey; it's your entire shtick. You keep >>> >>offering the same lame ass answers over and over again, until we're >>> >>forced to shake or heads and walk away.
>>> >>You STILL have not listed the alleged reforms of the $2.7 trillion >>> >>health insurance system that are contained in those reform bills.
>>> >I did for one of the bills listed that you said never even existed >>> >Milt. Just because you don't like the reform they offer doesn't mean >>> >they don't offer reform.
>>> That's *exactly* how Miltie thinks...
>>Words mean things. The word "reform" has a specific meaning. Go look >>it up instead of pretending to know what it means.
Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 1, 6:46=A0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I unblocked you for a minute, because I wanted to show you your very >own cognitive dissonance, and you posted one for me. I didn't even >have to search; it's right here...
><mercy snip?
>> And you really think that absolves you of the fact that you lied about >> the Republican party not offering any bills on health care.
>> "Not one bill has been put into the hopper by a Republican regarding >> health insurance reform. =A0NOT ONE." =A0-- Milt Shook
>There. Right there. I took everything else out of the post, so that >you could see it. Even you have to see that the statement you're >claiming I lied about isn't even the statement I made.
The statement I claimed you lied about is this one right here:
"Not one bill has been put into the hopper by a Republican regarding health insurance reform. =A0NOT ONE." =A0-- Milt Shook
They have been submitted. You even claimed you read them as they came out after you claimed none were submitted.
>So, Jeffrey, are you stupid, or dishonest? Because it has to be one or >the other. You claim I stated one thing, but even YOU note that I said >something completely different.
Oh gosh...I paraphrase something in Milt thinks he's caught me in a lie! How quaint.
>Dishonest, or really really dumb? Those are the only choices left to >you, Jeffrey. Which is it?
Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 1, 7:02=C2=A0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 31, 5:15=3DA0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote: >> >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Oct 29, 6:45=3D3DA0am, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) w= >rote: >> >> >> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ><mercy snip> Why the FUCK do you not clean this shit up?
>> >> >Oh, wait; I know why... if it's long, then there's a greater chance n= >o >> >> >one will read your bullshit.
>> >> Oh wait...I know why, you said something really stupid and hope no one >> >> will go back and look!
>> >Jeffrey, we can all go back in a thread. If you haven't learned how to >> >so that after so many years, that explains so much...
>> >> >> >> >Don't just list them, you clown. Tell me what "reforms" they >> >> >> >> >institute.
>> >> >> >> No. =3D3D3DA0They are bills you claim don't exist. =3D3D3DA0They= > do. =3D >> >=3D3D3DA0You'=3D3D >> >> >re a liar=3D3D3D >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> an ill-informed fool Milt, which is it?
>> >> >> >I said NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY = >A >> >> >> >REPUBLICAN.
>> >> >> >I stand by that.
>> >> >> Of course you do. =3D3DA0You have no choice. =3D3DA0To admit you're= > wrong =3D >> >after >> >> >> making so many errors would not sit well with your self-delusionsal >> >> >> perceptions of yourself.
>> >> >I make errors occasionally. But most of the ones you point out are >> >> >manufactured. Like this one.
>> >> It is? =3DA0So when you claimed that "NOT ONE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM = >BILL >> >> HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY A REPUBLICAN" what did you mean, exactly?
>> >Just what I said. I don't mince words. YOU are the one trying to mince >> >words, in the hope that you can be right about something.
>> >Not one of those bills you presented reforms anything. Again, reform >> >has a specific meaning, and it's a lot more than simply changing a >> >little something to get a couple of million people covered.
>> Well you've been asked to show your definition that requires a certain >> number of changes.
>A certain number? There isn't even ONE item in any of them what would >constitute "reform."
>re=E2=8B=85form >=E2=80=82=E2=80=82/r=C9=AA=CB=88f=C9=94rm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-f= >awrm] Show IPA >=E2=80=93noun >1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, >unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform. >2. an instance of this. >3. the amendment of conduct, belief, etc. >=E2=80=93verb (used with object) >4. to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, >substitution, abolition, etc. >5. to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or >conduct. >6. to put an end to (abuses, disorders, etc.). >7. Chemistry. to subject to the process of reforming, as in refining >petroleum. >=E2=80=93verb (used without object) >8. to abandon evil conduct or error: The drunkard promised to reform. >=E2=80=93adjective >9. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of >Reform Jews or Reform Judaism: a Reform rabbi.
>The problems with our health insurance system are because of private >insurance company practices designed to maximize profits,
What is that profit margin Milt? 20%, 10%, 5%, 1? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't make any money?
> often at the >expense of health outcomes. None of the Republican bills even >addresses the major problems with the system. Reform REQUIRES changes >to the major problems with the system.
So the Democratically health care reform isn't really reform. Gee...that was easy.
>If you can demonstrate major >changes that require insurance companies to change present practices, >then present them. Otherwise, you have no argument.
Where does Congress get the authority to "require" insurance companies do anything?
>> >>>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ----- >> >>>>> It's so simple; why can't you understand this? Perhaps the problem = >is >> >>>>> your ideology, which you believe has to always be right? Of course,= > my >> >>>>> side always has to be wrong, or your ideology doesn't work for you. >> >>>>> Sad, really...
>> >>>> I think you're the dumbest person I've ever run in to.
>> >>> You should see the view from here..
>> >>> --See subject header for details..
>> >> It's amazing, isn't it? He spends all these posts demonstrating that >> >> he doesn't understand the basic concepts I've presented, but he's >> >> SMARTER than me?
>> > And you've spent the whole time arguing
>> Incorrect. =A0Milt has falsified the premises your 'conclusions' >> were based upon. =A0Sorry to hear that critical thinking is still >> beyond your grasp, Jeffy..
>> >> Cognitive dissonance. It's the only reason I even play with them once >> >> in a while.
>> > Keep telling yourself that
>> It's not a 'belief', Jeffy. =A0You've inadvertently demonstrated >> Milt's points for him, several times over..
>> --Your self-righteous indignation chief among that..
>It would be funny, if Jeffrey hadn't been on Usenet for at least 12-13 >years that I'm aware of, and still demonstrates the same inability to >form or respond to an argument. It almost makes me feel sorry for him. >I mean, the guy's not retarded, obviously; he's worked at a geology >lab now for years, and his name appears as a co-author on several >studies.
>Yet, when it comes to arguing politics, he simply cannot use >basic facts or reasoning. I mean, the guy keeps changing my argument >so that he can argue it, and I change it back. Then he changes it to >something else, and I change it back. No matter how many times I try >to revert to the original argument, he thinks changing it to something >else is smart. It's just bizarre.
>I mean, I get why "nobody" and The Stalker are morons; they seem to >have little or no formal education; it's why they hate us so much. But >how does someone engage heavily in scientific research at a major >university, and make such boneheaded logical errors? It just boggles >the mind...
>>> >> >>>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> ----- >>> >> >>>>> It's so simple; why can't you understand this? Perhaps the >>> >> >>>>> problem is your ideology, which you believe has to always be >>> >> >>>>> right? Of course, my side always has to be wrong, or your >>> >> >>>>> ideology doesn't work for you. Sad, really...
>>> >> >>>> I think you're the dumbest person I've ever run in to.
>>> >> >>> You should see the view from here..
>>> >> >>> --See subject header for details..
>>> >> >> It's amazing, isn't it? He spends all these posts demonstrating >>> >> >> that he doesn't understand the basic concepts I've presented, but >>> >> >> he's SMARTER than me?
>>> >> > And you've spent the whole time arguing
>>> >> Incorrect. Milt has falsified the premises your 'conclusions' were >>> >> based upon. Sorry to hear that critical thinking is still beyond >>> >> your grasp, Jeffy..
>>> >> >> Cognitive dissonance. It's the only reason I even play with them >>> >> >> once in a while.
>>> >> > Keep telling yourself that
>>> >> It's not a 'belief', Jeffy. You've inadvertently demonstrated >>> >> Milt's points for him, several times over..
>>> >> --Your self-righteous indignation chief among that..
>>> > It would be funny, if Jeffrey hadn't been on Usenet for at least >>> > 12-13 years that I'm aware of, and still demonstrates the same >>> > inability to form or respond to an argument. It almost makes me feel >>> > sorry for him. I mean, the guy's not retarded, obviously; he's worked >>> > at a geology lab now for years, and his name appears as a co-author >>> > on several studies. Yet, when it comes to arguing politics, he simply >>> > cannot use basic facts or reasoning. I mean, the guy keeps changing >>> > my argument so that he can argue it, and I change it back. Then he >>> > changes it to something else, and I change it back. No matter how >>> > many times I try to revert to the original argument, he thinks >>> > changing it to something else is smart. It's just bizarre.
>>> > I mean, I get why "nobody" and The Stalker are morons; they seem to >>> > have little or no formal education; it's why they hate us so much. >>> > But how does someone engage heavily in scientific research at a major >>> > university, and make such boneheaded logical errors? It just boggles >>> > the mind...
>>> So Jeffy's actually got a brain, eh? Hard to tell from what he's >>> posted here over the years, but you don't get a university position in >>> geology with the standard right wing two-digit IQ.
>> Two-digits encompasses too wide a range for these idiots. My autistic >> nephews have two-digit IQs, and they seem to have a better grasp on some >> concepts than some of the wingnuts here.
>>> Maybe he thinks he's being Socratic. Socrates, of course, like to put >>> forth leading questions to reframe the argument, or shift the focus, >>> and cause the respondent to reach the conclusion Socrates wanted.
>>> The trouble is, Jeffy's no damned good at it. Socrates would try to >>> introduce a different perspective, rather than a revision of terms.
>> He's not Socratic at all; none of them are. I can handle that people >> disagree with me; it happens all the time. Hell; you and I disagree >> quite often. But we don't change the terms of the debate. The problem >> is, these people only see black and white; they are incapable of seeing >> anything in between. Combine the reality that they're being lied to >> repeatedly by their chosen "news" services, and their desperation to >> make their "facts" reality forces them to change the argument to >> something that conforms with their argument. Did you see the blatant >> falsehood Jeffrey told today?
>The one where you originally asked for an example of a GOP health care >reform being offered, and Jeffy tried claiming, that you asked for BILLS >the GOP offered,
No I didn't. Was I as precise as apparently I should have been no. However, anyone following the conversation would have no doubt as to what I was talking about.
>after it was clear to one and all that the bills >contained no reforms? Yeah.
No reforms by Milt's narrow definition. And by narrow he means it wasn't offered by a Democrat.
>>>You >>>just keep repeating the same bullshit; it they have the words "health >>>care' and/or "reform" in the title, they must be reform bills. They're >>>not, Jeffrey. Reform is a specific word, with a specific meaning. None >>>of those bills fit that meaning.
>> And you really think that absolves you of the fact that you lied about >> the Republican party not offering any bills on health care.
>> "Not one bill has been put into the hopper by a Republican regarding >> health insurance reform. NOT ONE." -- Milt Shook
>> See that? That's an example of their cognitive dissonance. He apparently >> thinks that what he said and what I said are exactly the same, when >> they're obviously not. And that's him quoting me; that's not even me >> restating my argument.
>> That's why I don't deal with wingnuts much anymore. They're all about >> emotionality and trying to prove the unprovable.
>When they don't sink to the levels of stalking, or being netnazis, or >just substiting personal abuse for argument.
>The saddest thing you can say about the far right is that Jeffy is one of >the BETTER ones.
>>> >>>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ----- >>> >>>>> It's so simple; why can't you understand this? Perhaps the problem = >>is >>> >>>>> your ideology, which you believe has to always be right? Of course,= >> my >>> >>>>> side always has to be wrong, or your ideology doesn't work for you. >>> >>>>> Sad, really...
>>> >>>> I think you're the dumbest person I've ever run in to.
>>> >>> You should see the view from here..
>>> >>> --See subject header for details..
>>> >> It's amazing, isn't it? He spends all these posts demonstrating that >>> >> he doesn't understand the basic concepts I've presented, but he's >>> >> SMARTER than me?
>>> > And you've spent the whole time arguing
>>> Incorrect. =A0Milt has falsified the premises your 'conclusions' >>> were based upon. =A0Sorry to hear that critical thinking is still >>> beyond your grasp, Jeffy..
>>> >> Cognitive dissonance. It's the only reason I even play with them once >>> >> in a while.
>>> > Keep telling yourself that
>>> It's not a 'belief', Jeffy. =A0You've inadvertently demonstrated >>> Milt's points for him, several times over..
>>> --Your self-righteous indignation chief among that..
>>It would be funny, if Jeffrey hadn't been on Usenet for at least 12-13 >>years that I'm aware of, and still demonstrates the same inability to >>form or respond to an argument. It almost makes me feel sorry for him. >>I mean, the guy's not retarded, obviously; he's worked at a geology >>lab now for years, and his name appears as a co-author on several >>studies.
>Milt is stalking me...waahhhh!
Notice that Miltie has vanished from yet another thread. Seems like whenever anything gets hot, he suddenly "has a life".
|
