Obama gives away oil to Russia

[JD Barleycorn]

Liberals are very simple. I mean they are simple. Especially when they are trying to describe what conservatives believe in. They are very wrong but simple. You can see the proof up above.

This comes from Alinsky; frame the argument (tell the masses what your opponent believes whether is true or not), isolate your opponent (add subtle little things like "we all agree", "we all know", "no reasonable person can disagree", or "only a racist would oppose what we are doing", and ridicule your opponent (feeble attempts are seen up above). Pure Alinsky (noted communist and America hater)

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Liberals are very simple. I mean they are simple. Especially when they are trying to describe what conservatives believe in. They are very wrong but simple. You can see the proof up above.

This comes from Alinsky; frame the argument (tell the masses what your opponent believes whether is true or not), isolate your opponent (add subtle little things like "we all agree", "we all know", "no reasonable person can disagree", or "only a racist would oppose what we are doing", and ridicule your opponent (feeble attempts are seen up above). Pure Alinsky (noted communist and America hater)

still wont admit your thread was a farce, or you were too easily led by bullshit mudslinging to check before you posted it, huh JLSD?

[WTF]

Question Wording: Do you support or oppose doing each of the following to deal with the federal budget deficit: Cut Medicare and Medicaid?

Originally Posted by mastermind238

Asking someone if they favor CUTTING Medicare and Medicaid IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT YOU'RE ASKING THEM ABOUT REFORM OR RESTRUCTURE. Most people would take the question exactly as it was put - and as I've said repeatedly, the correct answer to that, whether you're Tea Party or not - is NO.

It was a simple question that cut to the core of the Tea Party wants. Which is do you want to cut government spending? Your answer appears to be NO. At least no in cutting Medicare/Medicaid.

I am for cutting all government spending, not just the programs I oppose. Like I have said, The Tea Party appears to be nothing more than another special interest group.

Originally Posted by mastermind238

If I asked you whether you'd rather have me shoot you in the head or the heart, what would be the correct answer? Head? or Heart? The correct answer would be NEITHER, but that wasn't one of the choices, was it?

.

Why waste a bullet? You neither appear to have a neither a brain nor heart.

Originally Posted by mastermind238

Option A - Cut? or Option B - Don't Cut? Option C - scrap it and start over. That would be the Tea Party response. But the option was neither given nor implied in Marist's question.

The simple question was were you for cutting government programs that you appear to favor. Simple enough. It did not mention Obamacare. The point was were you for cutting government spending? Your answer speaks volumes.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

You can believe it if you like, but that doesn't make it so. Cutting funding for a program is not the same as reforming a program. Sorry.

Yes it is. If a program is spending more than it takes in, you need to cut spending/costs or raise taxes. Pretty damn simple. Like I have said, simple math does not appear to be the Tea Part's strong point.

Originally Posted by mastermind238

On the contrary, it's perhaps more sophisticated that you care to admit. Or maybe the point of it just escaped you. In the example, I gave two - and ONLY two - choices, neither of which gives an acceptable outcome for the person being shot. As to how a Tea Partier would approach Medicare, the choices aren't between full funding and reduced funding. The third choice - scrap it and start over with a differently structured program - is the RIGHT choice.

Your second choice should have been to do nothing which means keep letting costs escalate, not being shot in another body part. The third choice then just becomes a combo of the first two .

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

. They are very wrong but simple. You can see the proof up above...

...(feeble attempts are seen up above)

JD , you are the first post on this page. There is nothing up above you. No liberal posts, no examples from which to see.

70% of you Tea Party folks do not want to cut Medicare or Medicad spending. When pointed out that fact, you try and spin that as you really want to just change it. Hoe so? Do you want to cut services? Do you want to raise taxes? Either by having people wait before they can retire of by increasing the cap?

On t a related topic. Do you want to continue spending money of folks that do not have insurance with ER care, expensive ER care? Or would you like to try and get these freeloaders into the system?

Solutions Mr Tea Partier, solutions. Being the party of no has grown old. Are you for the Ryan plan which basically will put the responsibility of cuts into the people that insure folks? That has gotten us where we are today. What makes anyone think the exact same thing will not happen to the elderly?

These are very complex choices we have before us but the basic math is really very simple. We do not have the money for the services we desire. Sorry that simple math problem is so hard for you to grasp. As a government employee all these years, I can see where you have not had to actually think about things like this as your healthcare has been provided for.

[CuteOldGuy]

What are your solutions, WTF, except to gripe about everyone else's solutions? Oh, I see, you have none, but you do like feeling superior and smug, with no reason or effort. Pompous windbag, you are.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What are your solutions, WTF, except to gripe about everyone else's solutions? Oh, I see, you have none, but you do like feeling superior and smug, with no reason or effort. Pompous windbag, you are.

I have plenty of solutions, if I were King, all would be good.

The Boyles/Simpson report had it pretty close to right. Close enough.

Hopefully you are smart enough to know about that.

I'm pompous for a reason. Reason being, I know this subject matter better than you or JD and for sure mastermind.

[CuteOldGuy]

You can't even get the name of Bowles Simpson right, how the hell do you know more about it than the rest of us? Explain it to us, O Wise One. Quit hiding behind documents you cannot comprehend.

You are a legend in your own mind.

[WTF]

I don't have to spell it right to have you know wtf I was talking about.

Are you a Tea Nut too?

Look cutiepie, I do not think being more versed on a few subjects we banter about on these boards makes me a legend. That you do, that you think being smarter than another is something to actually be proud of is asinine in my book. I am sure there are plenty of subjects that you are much better versed than I. This ain't one of'em. No big deal either way but we have to try and talk in reality to move the ball along.

Have you figured out who toppled building 7 as of yet?

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, I am better versed, and you've given me no reason to doubt that. And no, I don't know what caused Building 7 to collapse like it did. I would like to, but I will have to find someone other than you to explain it, because, as usual, you are clueless. Why do you even bother?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, I am better versed, and you've given me no reason to doubt that.

The Tea Nuts are just trying to protect their own special interests. Nothing more nothing less. Most all of us do the exact same thing. We just do not think we are special for doing so or we are not dumb enough to not think that is wtf we are doing.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

. And no, I don't know what caused Building 7 to collapse like it did. I would like to, but I will have to find someone other than you to explain it, because, as usual, you are clueless.

Go to the other thread...I have done the research for you

[JD Barleycorn]

Is it really necessary to point out that when I posted it was at the bottom of the page?

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/
You can facts supporting what I said here and you can find facts opposing what I posted originally. An unratified treaty with a country that no longer exists is the basis that the US has no claim on these islands. Some of those islands have US citizens living on them but not all. The article concludes that no president has ever claimed the islands but the maps deny this. At one time the islands were US territory just like the Falklands were, and are, UK territory. There wasn't much question of that until the Argies tried to take them. I imagine that there all kinds of islands around the world that no one has ever claimed because no one ever really cared except the people living there.
So it seems to me that American citizens don't want to be Russian citizens.

I will also point out that the author Brooks Jackson is a left leaning writer/reporter for NPR, CNN, the Wallstreet Journal, and is the director of the Annenberg Foundation.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Is it really necessary to point out that when I posted it was at the bottom of the page?

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/
You can facts supporting what I said here and you can find facts opposing what I posted originally. An unratified treaty with a country that no longer exists is the basis that the US has no claim on these islands. Some of those islands have US citizens living on them but not all. The article concludes that no president has ever claimed the islands but the maps deny this. At one time the islands were US territory just like the Falklands were, and are, UK territory. There wasn't much question of that until the Argies tried to take them. I imagine that there all kinds of islands around the world that no one has ever claimed because no one ever really cared except the people living there.
So it seems to me that American citizens don't want to be Russian citizens.

I will also point out that the author Brooks Jackson is a left leaning writer/reporter for NPR, CNN, the Wallstreet Journal, and is the director of the Annenberg Foundation.

You are the Chicken Little of this forum.

The question that has become with you is, "How many other chickens can you convince?"

[JD Barleycorn]

OH, you're not going to read it are you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

OH, you're not going to read it are you?

That is what happens when you become Henny Penny.