192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 02:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Which is of course why the idea of building one over the Ogalla aquifer is so ******* stupid...


Unless you plan to market bottled water, at a huge premium, for profit.

If tricky Dicky says fracking is safe, you'd have to believe him, right?
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
farmerman
 
  3  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 03:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Which is of course why the idea of building one over the Ogalla aquifer is so ******* stupid
Obama has been getting o much flack from the morons that e can handle such a spill. I was asked to leave a meeting of a Nebraska GW source water protection plan where i called the pipelines construction over aquifers like the Edwards, the Sand Hills, Ogalalla, and several other lesser gw bodies. Obamas idea wa to hqve the pipeline be moved o better protect the aquifers, and the moron Limbaugh, and several others went into full frontal attack (As if they hqve even a teeny clue about whqt they proposed)

Unfortunately this will mess up some resources further north (I believe native wild "rice" production will, at first tank and, over 5 to 10 year it will rise again (if no further leaks happen).

When the hell do the battles of culture stop becoming so damned dangerous. We have many states wherein entire watersheds are fucked up because of past coal mining yet we act like this can never happen again.




hightor
 
  4  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 03:37 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Actually I'm about a trillion times smarter than you are.


And then you trot out that stupid line...again!

<shakes head in weary disbelief>

Oliver Cromwell wrote:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
hightor
 
  2  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 03:40 pm
Zardoz wrote:
The good news is that the House of Representatives passed the tax overhaul bill and the bad news is that the House passed the tax overhaul bill. The Washington Post using one of Trump's old tax returns calculated Trumps tax cut for him and his relatives at $2.1 billion. Someone has to pay for it and by 2025 60% of the middle class will pay higher taxes than they pay now. Whenever there is a tax cut for those who have the most there is a huge sucking sound as the ungodly greedy bleed the middle class once again. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The House tax bill makes no provisions to cut the cost of government operations. The cost of government does not go down when there is a tax cut. We can not continue to raise the deficit $1.4 trillion so the cost of government has been shifted to the middle class each time the Republicans "cut the taxes on the ungodly greedy." One recent example was that the Trump government refused to pay sales tax on Medicaid in Ohio. The trouble was the sales tax funded the ambulance service in Ohio counties. Property owners were faced with a decision to vote for a property tax levy that would raise their property taxes by nearly $50 a year or do without ambulance service. The funeral homes could take back over but they have a vested financial interest in seeing that you don't make it. This happened in hundreds of different ways when Reagan cut the taxes on the ungodly. Regan tax theory was trickle down economics but in reality what we had was trickle down taxes as many state and local taxes were raised to replace the lost federal revenue.

The tax cuts for corporations are permanent but the individual tax cuts are only temporary but the elimination of the tax deductions is permanent so when the tax cuts expire you will not have the tax deductions to fall back on. When the tax cuts on the middle class expire the country will be in such bad shape with an over a $20 trillion deficit that the Republicans will flip yet again declaring that the deficit is the number one problem and they are so sorry but they really had no choice when you reached for your chips they had to cut your hands off at the wrist.

However one deduction that was not eliminated was the 'charitable deduction' and most people think of the Salvation Army or March of Dimes but there are many non profits that qualify for the deduction. The charitable deduction is the very reason that there is a tax cut being debated today. Many of the ungodly greedy contribute up to a $100 million a year to non profit political organization which qualify for the charitable deduction when they have absolutely nothing to do with charity and everything to do with push political ideology like tax cuts for the ungodly rich. This deduction was never ever intended to be used this way. The "charitable deduction' needs to be completely eliminated or all of the loopholes need to be tightened up to stop the abuses. You should not be able to deduct money used to recruits people into cults whether Muslim or Christian. If you want to use your money that way fine but use your money not government money.

https://able2know.org/topic/170827-111#post-6540590
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 03:48 pm
@oralloy,
What facts would those have been, slick? Despite your apparent delusion to that effect, your opinions do not constitute facts. I did not attempt to excuse anyone groping people, so not only was that a straw man for you to allege it, but it was the basis of my statement that sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander. The tu quoque fallacy arises when one attempts to excuse moral failing in one by pointing to it in another. I had not done that. But you sure did.

So you think this is about winning" What did you win, slick?

Ed, what do we have for our winning contestant today?

Johnny, it's a brand new car!


Ah-hahahahahahahaha . . . you crack me up.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Builder
 
  -1  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 04:26 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
We have many states wherein entire watersheds are fucked up because of past coal mining yet we act like this can never happen again.


In a "free-market" capitalist parlance, they are called "sacrifice zones".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 04:36 pm
@oralloy,
No, the tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to turn an argument back on someone by attacking that someone for the same moral failure as those whom they have condemned. I didn't do that, so your sneer about the tu quoque fallacy was false, because I had condemned all people who grope others. Snood pointed that out and you attacked him for that. In the context of my original remark, about which you sneered, there was no appeal to hypocrisy. This is just one example of the failure of your rhetoric.

Your next remark in your chopping of my post is irrelevant, because you are not dealing with facts, "inconvenient" or otherwise. And you did indeed erect a straw man. I'll go get it in a minute. Your explanation of the tu quoque fallacy is incorrect. You did not "win" anything--I condemned those who grope others, I did not mention anything about severity of condemnation. So now you're making sh*t up to support your feeble attempt at rhetoric. At no time did I employ argumentum ad hominem. I simply pointed out that your opinions are not facts.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 04:40 pm
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/17/dem-running-for-ohio-gov-opens-up-about-sexual-escapades-with-50-attractive-females/?utm_medium=email

Like cockroaches scurrying across a kitchen floor when the light is suddenly turned on...and it doesn't appear (at least here) that this guy has anything to hide or hide from...except that he's a horse's ass:

Quote:
“Now can we get back to discussing legalizing marijuana and opening the state hospital network to combat the opioid crisis. I am sooooo disappointed by this national feeding frenzy about sexual indiscretions decades ago.” O’Neill finished. “Peace.”


I haven't been following the salacious details very closely, but the only one of the current herd of pigs in the news whose "indiscretions" occurred decades ago is, I believe, Roy Moore and I doubt this guy is all that disappointed about the pack pulling down Moore.

Besides, to the degree that "It was long ago and I was a much different person then" holds up as any sort of excuse or explanation it's only when the indiscretions took place during the cad's youth (teens and early 20's), when he (or she) had excess hormones coursing through his veins and his brain hadn't fully developed. A guy who is now 60 years old doesn't really get to say "Oh, that was decades ago when I was only 40 and so much less mature and so much more confused."

My money is on there being a lot more to O'Neill's past sexual activity than simply making love to consenting gorgeous women. If he was a pig with any of the 50 beauties, at least one is likely to get pissed off about this idiotic stunt and go to the media, so we probably won't have to wait long to find out.
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 04:44 pm
@oralloy,
Here was the straw man fallacy you employed. At no time did I compare the moral turpitude of Clinton to that of Moore. If you want to do so, that's fine, but you have no business bringing that up the context of my condemnation of those who grope people.

in his post #6540995, oralloy wrote:
If it's OK when Bill Clinton does it, it's OK when Roy Moore does it.


Source
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 04:44 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Caution! 1,300+ words of topic derailment above! ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑


Sorry. If you give me your e-mail address, next time I'll send you the Reader's Digest condensed version...and replace some of the big words so your self-esteem isn't diminished (BTW that means, so you won't feel bad about yourself.)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 05:06 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
For decades after their progressive hero, the brilliant, but deeply bent Clinton used his power and privilege to seduce vulnerable teenagers, intimidate the objects of his lust, and grope, manhandle and even rape the very women whose rights he professed to champion


You forgot the real estate criminality, the cocaine deals and all the murders.


A: I didn't know Bill was a coke fiend. That could explain a lot.
B: If I understand it correctly, the murders were all Hillary's
C: WTF are you going on about? The topic was sexual predation. I know quite well that this doesn't fit the caricature of me you've drawn in your mind, but when the name "Clinton" is mentioned I don't start frothing at the mouth (At least not "Bill Clinton." As long he was simply cheating on his wife with willing women who knew what they were getting themselves into, he did sort of fit the likable rogue character. Of course, once he sunk to using his office to seduce impressionable, guileless girls barely out their teens, actually groping women (as opposed to bragging that he could if he wanted to) and even raping at least one, the latter-day Errol Flynn became the latter-day Fatty Arbuckle.

Quote:
Let's compare and contrast. Was Roger Ailes accused of dealing in cocaine or conspiring to have a bunch of people murdered? No. Bill O'Reilly? Nope. Roy Moore? Trump? Nah. Did Clinton, like Moore, promote himself as a brave and holy gladiator waging punishing war against the morally impure? I don't recall that.


And your point is?

Didn't you just recently climb aboard Setanta's Logical Fallacy Express? What's the matter? You found the ride was too constraining?


[/quote]
snood
 
  3  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 05:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Blickers wrote:

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Caution! 1,300+ words of topic derailment above! ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑


Sorry. If you give me your e-mail address, next time I'll send you the Reader's Digest condensed version...and replace some of the big words so your self-esteem isn't diminished (BTW that means, so you won't feel bad about yourself.)

This abysmal jerk really thinks he's smarter than everyone and can't resist letting his inner asshat show.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 17 Nov, 2017 06:31 pm
@oralloy,
None of that is true. You offered no facts, just an opinion on the tu quoque fallacy, which happened to have been incorrect. There were no implications in my original remark such as you claim. I did not mention or discuss hypocrisy, I condemned those who grope others. You continue to characterize the fallacy in a manner convenient to your silly argument--but one which is false. You saying that your opinions are facts does not make them facts.

In my original remark, I did not mention the tu quoque fallacy, nor did anything I wrote imply that that was operative. You introduced that in your feeble sneer. You then employed a straw man fallacy, which I have already quoted and linked. These are rhetorical failings. Get over it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:53:53