Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#77 Apr 14 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well... no. But at least you've convinced yourself even if you've convinced no one else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Apr 14 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
0

I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Apr 14 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
0

I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.


Affecting
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Apr 14 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
At least you're better at English than you are at Math or Religion. You should focus on that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Apr 14 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm saying make no one pay for it except those who listen to it. If people want to donate to NPR, or advertise on NPR, let them do so like every other radio station in the country. Why should I have to pay a dime for NPR so that someone else can listen to it "for free"?


Didn't they cut NPRs funding? It's not like they needed it anyway. Of course I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the wars. Let the people fighting the wars pay for it.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:05pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#82 Apr 14 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Legitimate New Source wrote:
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.


Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Apr 14 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#84 Apr 14 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
***** ***** *****

****** ****** ******.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#85 Apr 14 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Apr 14 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS. I mean, I like them, and I'd be sad to see them go, but that's not the most compelling argument. I think that commercial outlets would be able to fill the void that they'd leave.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:49pm by Eske
#87 Apr 14 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Have you considered that a dollar of funding in one program might be a better investment than a dollar in a different program?


And have you considered that the same dollar left in the hands of the person who originally earned it, might just be an even better investment than both of them?
Yes. For the most part, it gets saved rather than spent. (This is of course only considering those paying significant levels of taxes, those who are poor enough would immediately put that money back into the local economy, and they're already taxed at very low levels or not at all.)

gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
lol, way to completely gloss over the entire purpose of NPR. Not even remotely close to "emergency news and information". Keep telling yourself that, wouldn't want to stress the card table your imaginary reality is based on.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:53pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#88 Apr 14 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
And viewers like you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Apr 14 2011 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

Republicans think that the only non-biased news sources are Fox, CNS News and LifeNews?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Apr 14 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
Apply the same logic to Fox News, but swap the political ideology.

You don't need to take opinion polls of fox to prove it's biased though, that can be done objectively by evaluating their content and by grading the amount of misinformation espoused by viewers of the network relative to those who do not. Spoiler alert: that was already done.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#91 Apr 14 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
And viewers like you.


Smiley: grin
#92 Apr 15 2011 at 1:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion.


That's interesting, because the GDP in 2008 was about 14 trillion. Considering about 20% of the population made over $100,000, there should have been about 1.8 trillion there even if that entire 20% made ONLY $100,000 a year. With a GDP of about 14 trillion, and considering the wealthiest 1% of Americans have as much money as the bottom 90% combined, well, the wealthy are making out like bandits if that's all the IRS can squeeze from them.

Sounds to me like "taxable income" means "what they were actually required to pay" and not "what they could have paid if it weren't for tax cuts and loopholes."
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#93 Apr 15 2011 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.


There's no need for a lot of the things the government spends money on. I'm just saying that as a taxpayer, I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the current wars we are fighting (not saying all wars are bad, just the ones we are engaged in now).

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#94varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 7:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#95 Apr 15 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?
If people couldn't discuss things with people they felt were being dishonest, all politics would have ended three hundred years ago. And, you know, probably all forms of communication in general.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Apr 15 2011 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?

By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.

Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Apr 15 2011 at 8:33 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?

By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.

Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.


One of the major keys is to provide information which doesn't disprove your theory within the first two paragraphs. Which you do all the time Varus. But it is funny so please continue to do so.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#98 Apr 15 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ryan's budget bill hits the House for a vote this afternoon. Republicans get the choice of:
(A) Vote for a bill that will never become law and go on record as supporting the dismantling of Medicare/Medicaid.
-or-
(B) Vote against the bill and be portrayed as repudiating the grand GOP plan for government austerity.

Have fun, guys.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 8:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#100 Apr 15 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Credible.

As in "You don't seem very credible when you're obviously illiterate."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 9:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (71)