Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
What is this. Another con. Pushing dogma. So politicalchic needs help, eh. So, here you go: Read this and maybe you will understand your plight:Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
Just clarify for me Rshermr -- so I can follow this brawl.. All of this dust--up is about you insisting on substituting a leftist FactCheck org for YOUR own knowledge and JUDGEMENT..
What question were you "fact-checking" here? Was it the jobs claim in the OP? Or the observation about Obama's unlawful use of Executive powers to rewrite work rules for Welfare recipients?
It's the kinda cat fight you have to follow thru 3 neighbor's yards to see who's winning...
thank you pinqy, for providing the facts....sorry you were ignored though....Let's check:1. "Willie Geist, MSNBC: What would you say to that same person that said, 'Well, that hasn't worked for four years. I haven't had the job over time, it's time for a change.'
Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what's happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That's more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there's obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that's the president."
Cutter: Obama Has Created More Jobs Than the Reagan Recovery | RealClearPolitics
The interview was August 22 2012 and the claim was that in the last 27 months there was a gain of 4.5 million private sector jobs.
The latest data at the time of the interview was for July 2012 and there were 111,317,000 private sector jobs (preliminary seasonally adjusted). 27 months earlier was April 2010 where there were 107,107,000. So "in the last 27 months" there was an increase of 4.21 million private sector jobs. Now, she possibly meant 29 months, as Feb 2010 was the low point in jobs, and it has been an increase of 4.5 million in the last 29 months.
And now for the truth:
Whoa! Cutter was talking about April 2010 to July 2012 and you're rebutting that with Jan 2009 to July 2011????? How does that work? And not just that, but you're you've comparing different data sets. You can't compare the household survey with the establishment survey.2. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.
Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.
In terms of employment, the private sector is smaller now than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009
Right...from 2009 to 2011 there was zero net jobs. BUT from Feb 2010 to July 2012 there was a net gain of 4.5 million.3. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!
Yes, it can be confusing...2 different surveys for employment and jobs. But if you're going to rebutt a claim you have to look at the same time frame claimed. Now if you want to add on that the 4.5 million gain was right after a 4.2 million LOSS, that would be fine, and would show Obama is being a little disingeuous.
One more time: Jan 2009 there were 110,985,000 non-farm private sector jobs. By Feb 2010 it dropped to 106,773,000 and by July 2012 it was 111,317,000 (pre recession it was 115,647,000)
So....Have 4.5 million private sector jobs been gained in the last 29 months? Yes.
Is that back up to the level when Obama took office? Yes.
Is it back up to pre-recession levels? Hell, No.
Note that Obama is restricting the claims to PRIVATE sector. State and local governments have laid off a lot of people and if we look at Total non-farm jobs, it was 133,561,000 when he took office, dropped to 129,244,000 in Feb 2010 and is now up to 133,245,000, which is a gain of 3.5 million in the last 27 months (gee, wonder why they went with private sector?) and is still not up to the level of when Obama took office.
Note, I have not defended Obama's policies, I have specifically pointed out the misleading parts of the Obama campaign claims, and yet some idiot will still claim my post is biased or defending Obama. i've listed straight facts you can double check at Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
thank you pinqy, for providing the facts....sorry you were ignored though....Let's check:1. "Willie Geist, MSNBC: What would you say to that same person that said, 'Well, that hasn't worked for four years. I haven't had the job over time, it's time for a change.'
Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what's happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That's more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there's obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that's the president."
Cutter: Obama Has Created More Jobs Than the Reagan Recovery | RealClearPolitics
The interview was August 22 2012 and the claim was that in the last 27 months there was a gain of 4.5 million private sector jobs.
The latest data at the time of the interview was for July 2012 and there were 111,317,000 private sector jobs (preliminary seasonally adjusted). 27 months earlier was April 2010 where there were 107,107,000. So "in the last 27 months" there was an increase of 4.21 million private sector jobs. Now, she possibly meant 29 months, as Feb 2010 was the low point in jobs, and it has been an increase of 4.5 million in the last 29 months.
And now for the truth:
Whoa! Cutter was talking about April 2010 to July 2012 and you're rebutting that with Jan 2009 to July 2011????? How does that work? And not just that, but you're you've comparing different data sets. You can't compare the household survey with the establishment survey.
Right...from 2009 to 2011 there was zero net jobs. BUT from Feb 2010 to July 2012 there was a net gain of 4.5 million.3. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!
Yes, it can be confusing...2 different surveys for employment and jobs. But if you're going to rebutt a claim you have to look at the same time frame claimed. Now if you want to add on that the 4.5 million gain was right after a 4.2 million LOSS, that would be fine, and would show Obama is being a little disingeuous.
One more time: Jan 2009 there were 110,985,000 non-farm private sector jobs. By Feb 2010 it dropped to 106,773,000 and by July 2012 it was 111,317,000 (pre recession it was 115,647,000)
So....Have 4.5 million private sector jobs been gained in the last 29 months? Yes.
Is that back up to the level when Obama took office? Yes.
Is it back up to pre-recession levels? Hell, No.
Note that Obama is restricting the claims to PRIVATE sector. State and local governments have laid off a lot of people and if we look at Total non-farm jobs, it was 133,561,000 when he took office, dropped to 129,244,000 in Feb 2010 and is now up to 133,245,000, which is a gain of 3.5 million in the last 27 months (gee, wonder why they went with private sector?) and is still not up to the level of when Obama took office.
Note, I have not defended Obama's policies, I have specifically pointed out the misleading parts of the Obama campaign claims, and yet some idiot will still claim my post is biased or defending Obama. i've listed straight facts you can double check at Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
"So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information." In what above. All that I saw was postings from con dogma sites. I do not spend my time looking at dogma, either con dogma or liberal dogma. That is for stupid people. Dipshits.Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
"So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information."
In short, no matter the evidence that your sources are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Left, you continue to maintain that they are the preeminent arbiters of truth.
I do so appreciate having you perform your duty as a foil, demonstrating how thoroughly the hard of thinking can be trained.
Be sure to return when it becomes necessary to establish the limited thinking ability found in a reliable Democrat mannequin.
"So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information." In what above. All that I saw was postings from con dogma sites. I do not spend my time looking at dogma, either con dogma or liberal dogma. That is for stupid people. Dipshits.Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
"So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information."
In short, no matter the evidence that your sources are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Left, you continue to maintain that they are the preeminent arbiters of truth.
I do so appreciate having you perform your duty as a foil, demonstrating how thoroughly the hard of thinking can be trained.
Be sure to return when it becomes necessary to establish the limited thinking ability found in a reliable Democrat mannequin.
In short, no matter the evidence that your sources are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Left, you continue to maintain that they are the preeminent arbiters of truth.Yes sir, er maam, or what the hell every you are. They are indeed, which is why you and all cons hate them so much. Because you hate the truth. Which is why you do not want anyone to look at them, as they will know quickly that they are indeed impartial. And the purpose of your attacks on them.
I do so appreciate .having you perform your duty as a foil, demonstrating how thoroughly the hard of thinking can be trained. Yes, Maam, er Sir, or whatever you are. Happy to clear up your thinking. You know, the conservative mind has been studied scrupulously many times over the years. Always comes out about the same. Which is well said by the title of this study: Conservatives are stupid. Not that all are, but more than should be. It helps to understand why. You should really read it. Because stupid people should not call others stupid. Because, at the risk of sounding redundant, it makes them look really stupid.
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Be sure to return when it becomes necessary to establish the limited thinking ability found in a reliable Democrat mannequin.Now, there is limited thinking ability. No, you have proven nothing, because you live, as I have said, in the world of con web sites. You post dogma, but can not argue the points. Because, me poor ignorant con, you are stupid. Just as the studies prove. Plain stupid.
So, what you are saying is you give. Tried to tear me apart, said you were going to do so. Posted a couple more links to dogma. Posted a link to crap from the creator of the concept of manifest destiny. Which, me poor ignorant con, had nothing to do with anything. But you can not discus policy.
Probably the most interesting of your attempts was the effort to paint fact check orgs as partial. That painted you as what you are. Which is a totally partial con wack job. You care not about truth, only about agenda, which in your case is the far right wing agenda. And then, you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that you are an honest player. Attempting to prove that the fact check orgs are partial by using statements from right wing organizations was really interesting. It really shows the state of the con mind.
You furthered the conviction when I suggested that we should suggest that people should go to the fact check sites themselves, and make their own assessments. You did not do that, on two occasions when you had the opportunity. Because you know, if they do, they will know you are an outright liar. Totally dishonest.
See ya around, dipshit. Thanks for proving yourself irrelevant.
she spouts propaganda she doesnt even completely understand.
things like statements about Most human beings not being good.
she is a puppet of some group of right wing fanatics.
she fears being unloved by the people arround her if she doesnt buy and spout this crap.
sad
Uh, sorry to disturb you again, politicalchic. But there, you said it again:thank you pinqy, for providing the facts....sorry you were ignored though....Let's check:
The interview was August 22 2012 and the claim was that in the last 27 months there was a gain of 4.5 million private sector jobs.
The latest data at the time of the interview was for July 2012 and there were 111,317,000 private sector jobs (preliminary seasonally adjusted). 27 months earlier was April 2010 where there were 107,107,000. So "in the last 27 months" there was an increase of 4.21 million private sector jobs. Now, she possibly meant 29 months, as Feb 2010 was the low point in jobs, and it has been an increase of 4.5 million in the last 29 months.
And now for the truth:
Whoa! Cutter was talking about April 2010 to July 2012 and you're rebutting that with Jan 2009 to July 2011????? How does that work? And not just that, but you're you've comparing different data sets. You can't compare the household survey with the establishment survey.
Right...from 2009 to 2011 there was zero net jobs. BUT from Feb 2010 to July 2012 there was a net gain of 4.5 million.
Yes, it can be confusing...2 different surveys for employment and jobs. But if you're going to rebutt a claim you have to look at the same time frame claimed. Now if you want to add on that the 4.5 million gain was right after a 4.2 million LOSS, that would be fine, and would show Obama is being a little disingeuous.
One more time: Jan 2009 there were 110,985,000 non-farm private sector jobs. By Feb 2010 it dropped to 106,773,000 and by July 2012 it was 111,317,000 (pre recession it was 115,647,000)
So....Have 4.5 million private sector jobs been gained in the last 29 months? Yes.
Is that back up to the level when Obama took office? Yes.
Is it back up to pre-recession levels? Hell, No.
Note that Obama is restricting the claims to PRIVATE sector. State and local governments have laid off a lot of people and if we look at Total non-farm jobs, it was 133,561,000 when he took office, dropped to 129,244,000 in Feb 2010 and is now up to 133,245,000, which is a gain of 3.5 million in the last 27 months (gee, wonder why they went with private sector?) and is still not up to the level of when Obama took office.
Note, I have not defended Obama's policies, I have specifically pointed out the misleading parts of the Obama campaign claims, and yet some idiot will still claim my post is biased or defending Obama. i've listed straight facts you can double check at Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
Overall, Obama has not created any jobs.
His term has been a failure on this, as on other fronts.
I challenge you to deny same.
"Obama is restricting...."
Need more be said?
There is a major effort by the right to squash any person or organization that does not toe the line, the line that they have set. Yet the line is set by the wealthy, who as always, want more. So it goes. Normal stuff from the far right. There truly is no comparable effort on the left. Though they will work hard to prove there is."So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information." In what above. All that I saw was postings from con dogma sites. I do not spend my time looking at dogma, either con dogma or liberal dogma. That is for stupid people. Dipshits.Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!
Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?
2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.
a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.
3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??
a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?
b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.
The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.
The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???
Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!
4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.
Get it?
You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....
...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.
So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.
No??
What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.
"So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information."
In short, no matter the evidence that your sources are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Left, you continue to maintain that they are the preeminent arbiters of truth.
I do so appreciate having you perform your duty as a foil, demonstrating how thoroughly the hard of thinking can be trained.
Be sure to return when it becomes necessary to establish the limited thinking ability found in a reliable Democrat mannequin.
In short, no matter the evidence that your sources are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Left, you continue to maintain that they are the preeminent arbiters of truth.Yes sir, er maam, or what the hell every you are. They are indeed, which is why you and all cons hate them so much. Because you hate the truth. Which is why you do not want anyone to look at them, as they will know quickly that they are indeed impartial. And the purpose of your attacks on them.
I do so appreciate .having you perform your duty as a foil, demonstrating how thoroughly the hard of thinking can be trained. Yes, Maam, er Sir, or whatever you are. Happy to clear up your thinking. You know, the conservative mind has been studied scrupulously many times over the years. Always comes out about the same. Which is well said by the title of this study: Conservatives are stupid. Not that all are, but more than should be. It helps to understand why. You should really read it. Because stupid people should not call others stupid. Because, at the risk of sounding redundant, it makes them look really stupid.
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Be sure to return when it becomes necessary to establish the limited thinking ability found in a reliable Democrat mannequin.Now, there is limited thinking ability. No, you have proven nothing, because you live, as I have said, in the world of con web sites. You post dogma, but can not argue the points. Because, me poor ignorant con, you are stupid. Just as the studies prove. Plain stupid.
So, what you are saying is you give. Tried to tear me apart, said you were going to do so. Posted a couple more links to dogma. Posted a link to crap from the creator of the concept of manifest destiny. Which, me poor ignorant con, had nothing to do with anything. But you can not discus policy.
Probably the most interesting of your attempts was the effort to paint fact check orgs as partial. That painted you as what you are. Which is a totally partial con wack job. You care not about truth, only about agenda, which in your case is the far right wing agenda. And then, you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that you are an honest player. Attempting to prove that the fact check orgs are partial by using statements from right wing organizations was really interesting. It really shows the state of the con mind.
You furthered the conviction when I suggested that we should suggest that people should go to the fact check sites themselves, and make their own assessments. You did not do that, on two occasions when you had the opportunity. Because you know, if they do, they will know you are an outright liar. Totally dishonest.
See ya around, dipshit. Thanks for proving yourself irrelevant.
What is this. Another con. Pushing dogma. So politicalchic needs help, eh. So, here you go: Read this and maybe you will understand your plight:Politicalchic says:
Just clarify for me Rshermr -- so I can follow this brawl.. All of this dust--up is about you insisting on substituting a leftist FactCheck org for YOUR own knowledge and JUDGEMENT..
What question were you "fact-checking" here? Was it the jobs claim in the OP? Or the observation about Obama's unlawful use of Executive powers to rewrite work rules for Welfare recipients?
It's the kinda cat fight you have to follow thru 3 neighbor's yards to see who's winning...
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice - Yahoo! News
Uh, sorry to disturb you again, politicalchic. But there, you said it again:thank you pinqy, for providing the facts....sorry you were ignored though....
Overall, Obama has not created any jobs.
His term has been a failure on this, as on other fronts.
I challenge you to deny same.
"Obama is restricting...."
Need more be said?
"Overall, Obama has not created any jobs."
So, the CBO says millions, you say ZERO. See any discrepancy here??? So, why should I believe you? Looks like a pretty obvious lie on your part, politicalchic.
Been watching this discussion. Looks like you are bailing out. Probably a good idea. They have actual facts.
In fact...that is exactly why I come here....to sit at your feet and learn!!!she spouts propaganda she doesnt even completely understand.
things like statements about Most human beings not being good.
she is a puppet of some group of right wing fanatics.
she fears being unloved by the people arround her if she doesnt buy and spout this crap.
sad
'she spouts propaganda she doesnt even completely understand.'
In fact...that is exactly why I come here....to sit at your feet and learn!!!
'things like statements about Most human beings not being good.'
I've studied your posts, your thoughts, your ideology....and am currently using same to evaluate your premise that 'all people are good.'
On the other hand....
1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
2. This foreknowledge is the basis for individuals to make decisions, and it is a system for dealing with a tragic existence and a deeply flawed human nature. In simplest form it asserts not the perfection, but the imperfectability of man. These assertions, as well as the extensions thereof, called philosophy or religion, may be called the Tragic View.
3. The Left has abandoned the Tragic View and considers life and man as unconstrained in our ability to understand and to supersede all strife and inequality. The Tragic View, however, holds that life is complicated and man is flawed, and so our actions must be guided by laws both difficult of formulation and of observance. And, since the laws have been made by man, they are also flawed, which means that they will not cover all situations, that they may cause anxiety…but that the health of society requires that we attempt to observe and apply them.
4. According to the tragic view, one may give up the necessity of choice only by surrendering responsibility, i.e., by the worship of a dictator, a charismatic figure, a politician. By renouncing the necessity of dealing with complexity, the Left endorses a ‘post-governmental’ era, in which the individual need not consider the economic and social results of his actions….or his vote.
a. By choosing not to choose, and simply endorsing “Change,” he simply rejects any information about the actual mechanics of said “Change” by referring to “Hope.”
b. The logical extension of the Left’s philosophy is that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provide for by government, but may insist upon it!
Dennis Prager
I look forward to your critique of the above, you explanation of why to believe, instead, that all people are good, therefore without need of the Bible, of laws, of restraint.
In short....'Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.'
In fact...that is exactly why I come here....to sit at your feet and learn!!!she spouts propaganda she doesnt even completely understand.
things like statements about Most human beings not being good.
she is a puppet of some group of right wing fanatics.
she fears being unloved by the people arround her if she doesnt buy and spout this crap.
sad
'she spouts propaganda she doesnt even completely understand.'
In fact...that is exactly why I come here....to sit at your feet and learn!!!
'things like statements about Most human beings not being good.'
I've studied your posts, your thoughts, your ideology....and am currently using same to evaluate your premise that 'all people are good.'
On the other hand....
1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
2. This foreknowledge is the basis for individuals to make decisions, and it is a system for dealing with a tragic existence and a deeply flawed human nature. In simplest form it asserts not the perfection, but the imperfectability of man. These assertions, as well as the extensions thereof, called philosophy or religion, may be called the Tragic View.
3. The Left has abandoned the Tragic View and considers life and man as unconstrained in our ability to understand and to supersede all strife and inequality. The Tragic View, however, holds that life is complicated and man is flawed, and so our actions must be guided by laws both difficult of formulation and of observance. And, since the laws have been made by man, they are also flawed, which means that they will not cover all situations, that they may cause anxiety but that the health of society requires that we attempt to observe and apply them.
4. According to the tragic view, one may give up the necessity of choice only by surrendering responsibility, i.e., by the worship of a dictator, a charismatic figure, a politician. By renouncing the necessity of dealing with complexity, the Left endorses a post-governmental era, in which the individual need not consider the economic and social results of his actions .or his vote.
a. By choosing not to choose, and simply endorsing Change, he simply rejects any information about the actual mechanics of said Change by referring to Hope.
b. The logical extension of the Lefts philosophy is that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provide for by government, but may insist upon it!
Dennis Prager
I look forward to your critique of the above, you explanation of why to believe, instead, that all people are good, therefore without need of the Bible, of laws, of restraint.
In short....'Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.'
'things like statements about Most human beings not being good.'
I've studied your posts, your thoughts, your ideology....and am currently using same to evaluate your premise that 'all people are good.'
On the other hand....
1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
2. This foreknowledge is the basis for individuals to make decisions, and it is a system for dealing with a tragic existence and a deeply flawed human nature. In simplest form it asserts not the perfection, but the imperfectability of man. These assertions, as well as the extensions thereof, called philosophy or religion, may be called the Tragic View.
3. The Left has abandoned the Tragic View and considers life and man as unconstrained in our ability to understand and to supersede all strife and inequality. The Tragic View, however, holds that life is complicated and man is flawed, and so our actions must be guided by laws both difficult of formulation and of observance. And, since the laws have been made by man, they are also flawed, which means that they will not cover all situations, that they may cause anxiety but that the health of society requires that we attempt to observe and apply them.
4. According to the tragic view, one may give up the necessity of choice only by surrendering responsibility, i.e., by the worship of a dictator, a charismatic figure, a politician. By renouncing the necessity of dealing with complexity, the Left endorses a post-governmental era, in which the individual need not consider the economic and social results of his actions .or his vote. So which right wing wack job did this quote come from, politicalchic. Because he just described the far right, he described you. You do not deal in fact, just right wing dogma.
a. By choosing not to choose, and simply endorsing Change, he simply rejects any information about the actual mechanics of said Change by referring to Hope.
b. The logical extension of the Lefts philosophy is that one need not work, and may not only hope to be provide for by government, but may insist upon it!
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager?? You are actually quoting Dennis Prager?? Can't get much further right than good old Dennis. Only true cons or truly stupid people listen to Dennis. But that is the type of source that Politichic uses. Shows you to be a con, only capable of spouting dogma. Stupid.
I look forward to your critique of the above, you explanation of why to believe, instead, that all people are good, therefore without need of the Bible, of laws, of restraint. So, I would love to see where she said that. Are you lying again, politicalchic???
In short....'Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.'
Wow. Did not know you were a bible thumper too. I would suggest you shove that bible up your self serving ass, dipshit. And, please don't faint on me, scarlett.
__________________
I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.
There may very well be 4.5 million new hires the problem is that there have been substantially more new layoffs.
PoliticalChic says:
Disgusting little twerps like you, when they've had their arguments shredded, and their ignorance revealed, can do no more than show their upbringing.
Get lost.
Rshermr says:
Little twerp. That is a hoot. I have a better idea. you bug off. Or try to argue your points, with your head out of far right wing wack job web sites. Your head is either there, or up your ass. Which is pretty much the same thing. Dipshit.
Polioticalchic says: Disgusting little twerps like you, when they've had their arguments shredded, and their ignorance revealed, can do no more than show their upbringing.
You have shredded no arguments, dipshit. You are incapable. And you are definitely delusional. You believe that going to some right wing site, getting totally prejudiced quotes, and posting them is profound, and has some actual meaning. It does not. Which is why I call you dipshit. You can not use impartial sites because they do not support your statements. But, apparently, that tells you nothing. Ignorant dipshit. And my upbringing, dipshit, leads me to try to find the truth. I know that is foreign to you, but that is my thing. Not dogma, as dogma is always bullshit when you examine it. Truth. You post dogma.
People who are imune to logic piss me off.
So, people like you who are unable to argue the very topic they post utilizing the rules of logic and need answers gravitate to dogma. Sad for you. But you are truly too ignorant to recognize it.
Relative to your command for me to get lost, obviously another indication of being delusional, politicalChic. I know you believe yourself to be sane. But you need help. You see, you have no power to command anyone to do anything. dipshit.
Rock? Must be projection, politicalchic. I have no rock.PoliticalChic says:
Disgusting little twerps like you, when they've had their arguments shredded, and their ignorance revealed, can do no more than show their upbringing.
Get lost.
Rshermr says:
Little twerp. That is a hoot. I have a better idea. you bug off. Or try to argue your points, with your head out of far right wing wack job web sites. Your head is either there, or up your ass. Which is pretty much the same thing. Dipshit.
Polioticalchic says: Disgusting little twerps like you, when they've had their arguments shredded, and their ignorance revealed, can do no more than show their upbringing.
You have shredded no arguments, dipshit. You are incapable. And you are definitely delusional. You believe that going to some right wing site, getting totally prejudiced quotes, and posting them is profound, and has some actual meaning. It does not. Which is why I call you dipshit. You can not use impartial sites because they do not support your statements. But, apparently, that tells you nothing. Ignorant dipshit. And my upbringing, dipshit, leads me to try to find the truth. I know that is foreign to you, but that is my thing. Not dogma, as dogma is always bullshit when you examine it. Truth. You post dogma.
People who are imune to logic piss me off.
So, people like you who are unable to argue the very topic they post utilizing the rules of logic and need answers gravitate to dogma. Sad for you. But you are truly too ignorant to recognize it.
Relative to your command for me to get lost, obviously another indication of being delusional, politicalChic. I know you believe yourself to be sane. But you need help. You see, you have no power to command anyone to do anything. dipshit.
Crawl back under that rock, you little worm.
Only true cons or truly stupid people listen to Dennis.
