Pot, meet kettle. You introduced the red herring when you made this thread about yourself.LoisL - i didn’t say I am pro-white. .So what? Nobody said you did. Why do you keep bringing up this red herring? I said I am pro white. You did not say you are pro white. You saidLoisL - to be “pro white" means you are anti anyone who does not fit the “white" description.That particular statement you made is false. You cannot correct your error by introducing a red herring.
Thanks, I appreciate advice from an expert in red herrings. It's the best advice I could hope for.LoisL - i didn’t say I am pro-white. .So what? Nobody said you did. Why do you keep bringing up this red herring? I said I am pro white. You did not say you are pro white. You saidLoisL - to be “pro white" means you are anti anyone who does not fit the “white" description.That particular statement you made is false. You cannot correct your error by introducing a red herring.
LoisL - Thanks, I appreciate advice from an expert in red herrings. It’s the best advice I could hope for.Vapid non-response noted. Clearly you recognize that to be pro white doe not mean being anti those that do not meet the white description, but you lack the honesty or fortitude to simply admit your error.
Okay, we get it. You can stop saying it now. No one lacks anything because they don't give the response you want. This is the internet, we aren't guests at your fraternity.LoisL - Thanks, I appreciate advice from an expert in red herrings. It’s the best advice I could hope for.Vapid non-response noted. Clearly you recognize that to be pro white doe not mean being anti those that do not meet the white description, but you lack the honesty or fortitude to simply admit your error.
Of course I cherry pick when it comes to political issues. Everybody does. They have to because there is too much trash floating around. Being political is not about the science, it is about the power and money. Political spin reacting to opposing political spin.I'm glad you said it. It's what I've always thought, but wasn't quite sure. You see the world as if the spin is truth. You don't know how to determine what's real, so you just pick things you think sound good. If you get 10 hits on something, and they all say about the same thing, then you think that's what everybody is hearing and what everybody is thinking. I'm guessing you do the same thing for your own life. You don't actually do the things you talk about, you just imagine you do or think you might some day, then after a while, your own fiction becomes reality. There's really no point in listening to you, or arguing with you, not even about what you say is your personal experience. What ever it's worth, it is a good insight into the mind of your average Trump fan. Whatever cooks your goose? You can play you’re games by coming up with fabricated realities. And that is most likely why you are having so much trouble dealing with Trump. The rest of us will continual to keep the food on the table and the system working.
You can play you’re games by coming up with fabricated realities.Which "fabricated realities" would that be?
Lausten - Okay, we get it. You can stop saying it now. No one lacks anything because they don’t give the response you want. This is the internet, we aren’t guests at your fraternity.Right, it is not a matter of what I want, rather, what the words in question mean. Words do not lose their meanings just because they are on the internet. Besides, Lois is a woman's name, which would make joining an fraternity unlikely. Quite obviously you have nothing substantial to say either. As for DarronS, this is very much on the topic of Nazis. A great many white people are reluctant to say what they really think for fear it will be considered racist, or Nazi. Well, too bad for them, I am pro white and I am not a racist, or a Nazi and I am not anti whoever does not meet the white description. Pro woman is a thing now because feminist has come to be associated with anti men and anti family and pro abortion and anti free speech and anti heterosexual sex and pro safe space special snowflake entitlement. So women who find all that 3rd wave feminist garbage revolting are saying they are pro woman as well as pro family, pro men, pro marriage, pro life, pro career, and pro family. I am not going to criticize a woman for saying she is pro woman because sex is not a choice, it is not an ideology that to be for necessarily means you are against something else.
You can play you’re games by coming up with fabricated realities.Which "fabricated realities" would that be? Whatever Lausten is talking about. And I don’t think you should be thinking you’re getting insight into a Trump fan. Half the time you are totally wrong when you accuse me of believing or siding with an issue. It seems you jump to conclusions to create a good vs. evil argument. I will admit that this type of dialogue is new to me, thus I have trouble getting my point across. You do have a skill for making an argument, but you are so consumed in your attacks that sometimes you totally miss my position on a subject. On the news tonight I watched Clinton’s campaign manager answer some questions from a news guy. I could see the news guy was old school and was put off by Clinton’s manager. Every time he ask a question the manager would talk about data or Trump. Never really answering the questions. I couldn’t believe that the Clinton’s would hire someone that talked out of the side of his mouth. It just seems to me that there is no ethics in this election by either parties. Sort of the same feeling I get from some of the people on this site.
Pro woman is a thing now because feminist has come to be associated with anti men and anti family and pro abortion and anti free speech and anti heterosexual sex and pro safe space special snowflake entitlement. So women who find all that 3rd wave feminist garbage revolting are saying they are pro woman as well as pro family, pro men, pro marriage, pro life, pro career, and pro family.A lot of people are reluctant to say they are feminists now because they are afraid it will be associated with anti-men or anti-family.
You can play you’re games by coming up with fabricated realities.Which "fabricated realities" would that be? Whatever Lausten is talking about. And I don’t think you should be thinking you’re getting insight into a Trump fan. Half the time you are totally wrong when you accuse me of believing or siding with an issue. It seems you jump to conclusions to create a good vs. evil argument. I will admit that this type of dialogue is new to me, thus I have trouble getting my point across. You do have a skill for making an argument, but you are so consumed in your attacks that sometimes you totally miss my position on a subject. On the news tonight I watched Clinton’s campaign manager answer some questions from a news guy. I could see the news guy was old school and was put off by Clinton’s manager. Every time he ask a question the manager would talk about data or Trump. Never really answering the questions. I couldn’t believe that the Clinton’s would hire someone that talked out of the side of his mouth. It just seems to me that there is no ethics in this election by either parties. Sort of the same feeling I get from some of the people on this site.Ask a simple question get a bunch of double-talk. Let's try that again. Specifically which "fabricated realities" would that be? That the white 'masters of the universe' have had a very bad track record when it comes to anyone's interest but their own? That the Donald Trump is deranged and speaks an incredible amount of idiotic nonsense? Please help me better understand your pain.
Off topic, but pssst…
TRUMP’S ANTI-SCIENCE CAMPAIGN By Lawrence M. Krauss , AUGUST 21, 2016 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign Over the past few months, we’ve seen Donald Trump lower, again and again, the bar for political discourse. All the while, though, he’s been lowering the scientific bar, too. In May, for instance, while speaking to an audience of West Virginia coal miners, Trump complained that regulations designed to protect the ozone layer had compromised the quality of his hair spray. ... ... In other cases, Trump treats scientific facts the way he treats other facts—he ignores or distorts them whenever it’s convenient. He has denied that climate change is real, calling it pseudoscience and advancing a conspiracy theory that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive." ... ...As if all this weren’t enough, Trump has argued for downsizing the Department of Education and said that the U.S. invests too much money in K-12 schooling. He has suggested that he might appoint Ben Carson—a young-Earth, anti-evolution creationist—to advise him on educational reform. He has called the National Institutes of Health “terrible," and has said that he would eliminate the E.P.A. In April, the science journal Nature reported that his anti-immigrant tirades could be hindering efforts to recruit good scientists and students to the U.S. The list goes on. ... ... The positions taken by Trump and the Republicans have consequences beyond science itself. Essentially, they are betting that, for a significant portion of the country, empirical reality doesn’t matter; they are also signalling that empirical reasoning won’t be the basis of their public policy. Today, of course, we face global challenges such as climate change, which are more urgent than any we have ever confronted. These challenges require a sober assessment of reality. When science is distorted on the campaign trail, it may produce applause lines. But if those distortions lead to bad public policy, the quality of people’s lives will suffer.You'll notice this supports my implication that the Trump is nuts. You should give the entire article a read, if you dare to look at your Trump Movement from the outside. guess that does rhyme with Bowel Movement, but I'll try to keep it out of the gutter. ;-)
Let's try that again. Specifically which "fabricated realities" would that be? That the white 'masters of the universe' have had a very bad track record when it comes to anyone's interest but their own? That the Donald Trump is deranged and speaks an incredible amount of idiotic nonsense? Please help me better understand your pain.I was referring to Lausten remarks, you picked up his post and put it into the insight of the Republican mind. Tell me this, why do you even bother talking about Trump and his bad points? If you think they are so bad, then don't waste your time with Trump. It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary. Talking about all her good point and all the none idiotic things she has done. That way I wouldn't get the feeling that the only way you can promote Hillary is to discredit Trump.
It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary.She's doing that pretty well herself.]
Tell me this, why do you even bother talking about Trump and his bad points? If you think they are so bad, then don't waste your time with Trump. It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary. Talking about all her good point and all the none idiotic things she has done. That way I wouldn't get the feeling that the only way you can promote Hillary is to discredit Trump.Speaking for myself, not CC, this election has come down to the choice of the lesser of two evils, as do most presidential elections. Bernie was my first choice, but given the choice between Clinton and Trump I'll take Clinton in a landslide. She isn't perfect of course, but she's a hell of a lot better choice than Trump. Court appointments matter, and Hillary at least pays lip service to global warming.
It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary.She's doing that pretty well herself.] Yea, it is well put together. And you can see that she has spent a lifetime in the political circles. The Farm-to-Fork sounded good. She has no plans for the country. This is what she is saying. During her first 100 days as president, she’ll work with both parties to make the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since WWII. Really, what was stopping her when she was senator from presenting that plan? Oh, wait, she did tell the people on New York when elected she would create more jobs. Guess what. That did not happen. The Obama stimulus package was to save 2.3 million jobs. The Taxpayers invested $787B. It didn’t work. Obama spent $224B in extended unemployment benefits. Cut peoples taxes by $224B. Results – we are told that the country is better off than if it had remained in a recession. We now have a huge national debt. Lausten, you as a single taxpayer now owes $151,000.00 of the national debt. How are you planning to pay that debt? If you don’t pay the creditors like the Social Security Trust Fund, it might have trouble making its payments. But about half of the debt is owed to foreign investors. They will want paid. I am afraid Hillary is just going to raise your debt. With Hillary you should be thinking about working a few more years before retirement.
Tell me this, why do you even bother talking about Trump and his bad points? If you think they are so bad, then don't waste your time with Trump. It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary. Talking about all her good point and all the none idiotic things she has done. That way I wouldn't get the feeling that the only way you can promote Hillary is to discredit Trump.Speaking for myself, not CC, this election has come down to the choice of the lesser of two evils, as do most presidential elections. Bernie was my first choice, but given the choice between Clinton and Trump I'll take Clinton in a landslide. She isn't perfect of course, but she's a hell of a lot better choice than Trump. Court appointments matter, and Hillary at least pays lip service to global warming. I think you are going to be happy. Hillary is set to win. But forget global warming. If the country goes into a recession or if the dollar falls as the world’s currency. There is not going to be much the United States will be able to do. We will be sitting around drinking our twenty dollar cup of coffee talking about how we use to be able to buy breakfast for under a hundred dollars.
Tell me this, why do you even bother talking about Trump and his bad points? If you think they are so bad, then don't waste your time with Trump. It seems to me that you could be promoting Hillary. Talking about all her good point and all the none idiotic things she has done. That way I wouldn't get the feeling that the only way you can promote Hillary is to discredit Trump.Speaking for myself, not CC, this election has come down to the choice of the lesser of two evils, as do most presidential elections. Bernie was my first choice, but given the choice between Clinton and Trump I'll take Clinton in a landslide. She isn't perfect of course, but she's a hell of a lot better choice than Trump. Court appointments matter, and Hillary at least pays lip service to global warming. I think you are going to be happy. Hillary is set to win. But forget global warming. If the country goes into a recession or if the dollar falls as the world’s currency. There is not going to be much the United States will be able to do. We will be sitting around drinking our twenty dollar cup of coffee talking about how we use to be able to buy breakfast for under a hundred dollars. I'm not too worried about that. Our country's economy has historically been better under Democratic presidents than when Republicans were in office, except when Jimmy Carter inherited a recession from the Nixon/Ford administrations.
The Obama stimulus package was to save 2.3 million jobs. The Taxpayers invested $787B. It didn’t work. Obama spent $224B in extended unemployment benefits. Cut peoples taxes by $224B.The Mike Yohe anomaly is that you know a few things, but then you seem to not understand much of anything. You jump very quickly from, "$X budgeted for Y program" to "it didn't work". I guess you missed the part where it isn't done yet. Or maybe the part where there is no consensus on whether or not it worked. Oh, that's right, you just pick the guys who agree with you, then say, "experts say" or "it's all over the news". No doubt, it was an unprecedented Keynesian move. Have you looked at the stock market and unemployment figures for 2008 vs 2016? As for me paying for it. I won't. The US government is not a household. The job of government is to grow the economy. They predict our ability to generate future revenue and make the proper investments. If we don't do that, the theory is, we'll fall behind the rest of the world. I don't know if it's right or not, but it's a high stakes game, and I think we have some pretty good people playing it at the moment.
The Obama stimulus package was to save 2.3 million jobs. The Taxpayers invested $787B. It didn’t work. Obama spent $224B in extended unemployment benefits. Cut peoples taxes by $224B.The Mike Yohe anomaly is that you know a few things, but then you seem to not understand much of anything. You jump very quickly from, "$X budgeted for Y program" to "it didn't work". I guess you missed the part where it isn't done yet. Or maybe the part where there is no consensus on whether or not it worked. Oh, that's right, you just pick the guys who agree with you, then say, "experts say" or "it's all over the news". No doubt, it was an unprecedented Keynesian move. Have you looked at the stock market and unemployment figures for 2008 vs 2016? As for me paying for it. I won't. The US government is not a household. The job of government is to grow the economy. They predict our ability to generate future revenue and make the proper investments. If we don't do that, the theory is, we'll fall behind the rest of the world. I don't know if it's right or not, but it's a high stakes game, and I think we have some pretty good people playing it at the moment. Mike is also ignoring that reality that the national debt is lower now than when Obama took office. Another Mike Yohe anomaly.
The Obama stimulus package was to save 2.3 million jobs. The Taxpayers invested $787B. It didn’t work. Obama spent $224B in extended unemployment benefits. Cut peoples taxes by $224B.The Mike Yohe anomaly is that you know a few things, but then you seem to not understand much of anything. You jump very quickly from, "$X budgeted for Y program" to "it didn't work". I guess you missed the part where it isn't done yet. Or maybe the part where there is no consensus on whether or not it worked. Oh, that's right, you just pick the guys who agree with you, then say, "experts say" or "it's all over the news". No doubt, it was an unprecedented Keynesian move. Have you looked at the stock market and unemployment figures for 2008 vs 2016? As for me paying for it. I won't. The US government is not a household. The job of government is to grow the economy. They predict our ability to generate future revenue and make the proper investments. If we don't do that, the theory is, we'll fall behind the rest of the world. I don't know if it's right or not, but it's a high stakes game, and I think we have some pretty good people playing it at the moment. Mike is also ignoring that reality that the national debt is lower now than when Obama took office. Another Mike Yohe anomaly. You mean flat out lie? Why not call a spade a spade?