Are democrat so out of touch with reality?

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives also believe evolution is a fraud and creationism should actually be taught in schools. Do fox news viewers still think Saddam was involved in 9/11? This thread is hilarious.

Is that what I believe? Thanks for informing me. Apparently I was a conservative and didn't know it. Maybe the reason is that I don't believe those things. I guess I'd better get busy believing the things that Phokus says I should, now that he's informed me I'm a conservative.

Please, tell me what else I should believe. I don't feel I'm living up to my conservatism.

To be more precise, i informed you that you pretend to be 'not a conservative' when it's blatantly obvious that you are one (the most damning evidence is that you're dumb as shit)

If being "dumb as shit" is all it takes to be a conservative, you should have had a top spot in the Bush administration, fucktard.

The sad thing is, you probably think that's a witty comeback in your vegetated mind :laugh:

If you think i'm dumb, just start crying about how much more stupid you are than i am (see: "Natural Monopoly"). You're my bitch, and your anger and your predisposition to follow me around like a hurt puppy shows it.

 

[BoberFett]

Follow you? You're the one that seems to end up in every thread to which I post.

And I see you still don't understand what the term natural monopoly means.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Why the name calling? Seriously, both parties have ignorant people who believe ridiculous things.

It's Phokus. One of the biggest idiots to ever set foot into ATP&N.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Why the name calling? Seriously, both parties have ignorant people who believe ridiculous things.

It's Phokus. One of the biggest idiots to ever set foot into ATP&N.

!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Follow you? You're the one that seems to end up in every thread to which I post.

And I see you still don't understand what the term natural monopoly means.

That's funny, i seem to be the one who introduced the concept to your uneducated mind. You must be confused (yet again).

In fact, i seemed to be the one who pm'd you teasing your ignorance, but you were too much of a pussy to respond

edit: and you followed me into this thread and the religious tolerance thread, did you not?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Are democrat so out of touch with reality?

hm.

Obama was born in Kenya and produced fake birth certificates.
Obama is a muslim.
Obama's speech to students was designed to indoctrinate them in liberal ideology.
Obama wants death panels for old people.
Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
Obama wants to create a hitler youth.
Obama's disaster recover plans advocate concentration camps.


clearly, the dems are the party who have lost touch with reality.

Conservatives also believe evolution is a fraud and creationism should actually be taught in schools. Do fox news viewers still think Saddam was involved in 9/11? This thread is hilarious.

Not to derail the thread, but it wasnt just Fox or the right that perpetuated that. The left is just as guilty in case you forgot.


Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. (bolded to dispell your flawed thinking)

There are plenty of polls like this. Youre very confused. Do I agree more of the right believed it? Yes; however, to say the left was immune to this flawed thinking is purely bullshit on your part.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Are democrat so out of touch with reality?

hm.

Obama was born in Kenya and produced fake birth certificates.
Obama is a muslim.
Obama's speech to students was designed to indoctrinate them in liberal ideology.
Obama wants death panels for old people.
Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
Obama wants to create a hitler youth.
Obama's disaster recover plans advocate concentration camps.


clearly, the dems are the party who have lost touch with reality.

Conservatives also believe evolution is a fraud and creationism should actually be taught in schools. Do fox news viewers still think Saddam was involved in 9/11? This thread is hilarious.

Not to derail the thread, but it wasnt just Fox or the right that perpetuated that. The left is just as guilty in case you forgot.


Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. (bolded to dispell your flawed thinking)

There are plenty of polls like this. Youre very confused. Do I agree more of the right believed it? Yes; however, to say the left was immune to this flawed thinking is purely bullshit on your part.

For the last time, democrats != 'left', there are such things as "Reagan Democrats"/"Blue Dog Democrats" who better fit with the GOP

Also, the only one confused is you, more relevant is how many people still believed it AFTER the initial invasion

Released: September 05, 2006

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...ad6zA0DzD34sA7xY8MVxrg

Do you agree or disagree that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks?

Dem: Yes 32%, No: 65%
GOP: Yes: 65%, No: 30%
Ind: Yes: 39%, No: 56%

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Whatever you say. You fail at comprehansion and you fail at comprehending the entirety of my post. Carry on with your bliss.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Whatever you say. You fail at comprehansion and you fail at comprehending the entirety of my post. Carry on with your bliss.

Gee, you mean to say that people were suckered into believing lies and insinuations of bush not so long after 9/11 and right after the invasion of iraq (look at your poll date).

Also look at bush's poll number during that time, the initial invasion gave him a huge bump:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

My numbers are more relevant than yours because facts slowly came out and the majority of idiot republicans STILL beleived the saddam/9/11 link several years after while the majority of democrats and independents didn't believe in such a link.

Sorry you can't seem to gather facts and present arguments in a logical way (aren't you the guy who thought taiwan had a 1 trillion dollar projected deficit because of it's nationalized heath care? :laugh: edit: haha, after checking my pm's, yeah, you're 'that guy' :laugh

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
single payer single payer single payer single payer

Can we have your address so we can send the bills to you?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Whatever you say. You fail at comprehansion and you fail at comprehending the entirety of my post. Carry on with your bliss.

Gee, you mean to say that people were suckered into believing lies and insinuations of bush not so long after 9/11 and right after the invasion of iraq (look at your poll date).

Also look at bush's poll number during that time, the initial invasion gave him a huge bump:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

My numbers are more relevant than yours because facts slowly came out and the majority of idiot republicans STILL beleived the saddam/9/11 link

Sorry you can't seem to gather facts and present arguments in a logical way (aren't you the guy who thought taiwan had a 1 trillion dollar projected deficit because of it's nationalized heath care? :laugh

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

The funny thing about quotes in today's day and age is, they never go away. Im not going to get into a link fest with you, but there have plenty of similar "highly suggestive" quotes from Democrats about Iraq.

Let it go.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

The funny thing about quotes in today's day and age is, they never go away. Im not going to get into a link fest with you, but there have plenty of similar "highly suggestive" quotes from Democrats about Iraq.

Let it go.

Whether or not democrats have made suggestive is moot, my point wasn't about who lied more about the iraq invasion. It was about how the POTUS could influence public opinion in that specific situation given 9/11 in recent memory. The question is whether democrats or republicans are more susceptible to being stupid and polls show it's the republicans by a wide margin. The fact that democrats have made some of those remarks actually strengthens my argument considering the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't swayed by their own party making those remarks.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

The funny thing about quotes in today's day and age is, they never go away. Im not going to get into a link fest with you, but there have plenty of similar "highly suggestive" quotes from Democrats about Iraq.

Let it go.

Whether or not democrats have made suggestive is moot, my point wasn't about who lied more about the iraq invasion. It was about how the POTUS could influence public opinion in that specific situation given 9/11 in recent memory. The question is whether democrats or republicans are more susceptible to being stupid and polls show it's the republicans by a wide margin. The fact that democrats have made some of those remarks actually strengthens my argument considering the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't swayed by their own party making those remarks.

Really, so the polls correlated IQ with the belief that Saddam was involved with 9/11? Interesting, I must have missed that part.

 

[Hammerhead]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
Maybe the dems should start talking about the 40 million in the US without insurance rather than the 50 million with out insurance as that number includes illegals. But I guess they have no interest in putting honest numbers up when talking about uninsured....

There's nothing honest about backpedaling from a blatant misrepresentation with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't argument.

The proposed bill doesn't cover illegals. Period. As the Republicans want it. Fault it for what it does that you don't like, not make-believe bullshit.

But yet they continue to peddle coverage for the 50M in the US without health coverage and 10M of those are illegals.They are misrepresenting the numbers which include illegals and they wonder why people think it will cover illegals.

The CBO estimates of those uninsured only 10 to 15 million are uninsured not by choice. The remaining are either illegals or CHOOSE to not have health insurance.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4210

That boils down to ~3% the total population....Ya, sounds like we really have to overhaul the system....

We have to overhaul the system because it is the least efficient health care system on the planet. (or at least in the industrialized world) The uninsured are only one part of the overall catastrophe.

Could you possible give us uniformed a list of just what "efficient" ways this bill will reduce the cost of our current health care? How will we add 45-50 million to the current system and not induce additional cost without an increase in premiums or a reduction in service? Considering that the majority of the 45-50 million will not/can not afford it on their own?

This is everyones gripe with this proposed bill. It has nothing to do with left/right, black/white, dem/repub it all comes down to the prez and congress has done a complete shitty ass job of explaining there proposal beyond the "talking points" of we are going to ensure everyone.

I'm not a rocket scientist but I can look as the numbers above and figure out that somethings gotta give and it usually involves my wallet when it comes to government!

People fear change and they fear unknown change even worse. That is why you are seeing shouting and disgust at the town halls.

I watch all these people shouting at these town hall meetings and it just reminds me of this:
video

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

The funny thing about quotes in today's day and age is, they never go away. Im not going to get into a link fest with you, but there have plenty of similar "highly suggestive" quotes from Democrats about Iraq.

Let it go.

Whether or not democrats have made suggestive is moot, my point wasn't about who lied more about the iraq invasion. It was about how the POTUS could influence public opinion in that specific situation given 9/11 in recent memory. The question is whether democrats or republicans are more susceptible to being stupid and polls show it's the republicans by a wide margin. The fact that democrats have made some of those remarks actually strengthens my argument considering the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't swayed by their own party making those remarks.

Really, so the polls correlated IQ with the belief that Saddam was involved with 9/11? Interesting, I must have missed that part.

If you have a belief that has no basis in reality and over the years, you're bombarded with facts that contradict your beliefs and you still hold onto it, then yeah, that is the definition of stupid. This is how the republican party survives.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

*shrug* Say what you want. The facts are as I layed them out, AND as you laid them out. The difference is that I admitted the right wrongly believed it moreso, and you cant even admit the left believed it as well. OK, so youre a partisan hack. Fair enough.

And yes, Im that guy. Im also the guy who admitted, unabashed and with an apology, that I misread the article. So back the fuck off. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong, and I did so then.

Do I have to explain in baby speak for you to understand?

The point is, after 9/11, the public would be more suspeptible to suggestion made by the president regarding national security. While Bush never explicitely said Saddam helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, he definitely made highly suggestive statements to make out a tie between them. After the invasion, the president got a very big bump in his approval ratings. The question is whether or not the public still believed the link after the facts trickled out that there was indeed no link. In the case of the overwhelming majority of idiot Republicans, they held onto that beliefs while the majority of Democrats and Independants do not.

The funny thing about quotes in today's day and age is, they never go away. Im not going to get into a link fest with you, but there have plenty of similar "highly suggestive" quotes from Democrats about Iraq.

Let it go.

Whether or not democrats have made suggestive is moot, my point wasn't about who lied more about the iraq invasion. It was about how the POTUS could influence public opinion in that specific situation given 9/11 in recent memory. The question is whether democrats or republicans are more susceptible to being stupid and polls show it's the republicans by a wide margin. The fact that democrats have made some of those remarks actually strengthens my argument considering the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't swayed by their own party making those remarks.

Really, so the polls correlated IQ with the belief that Saddam was involved with 9/11? Interesting, I must have missed that part.

If you have a belief that has no basis in reality and over the years, you're bombarded with facts that contradict your beliefs and you still hold onto it, then yeah, that is the definition of stupid. This is how the republican party survives.

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

Oh i didn't know Republicans favored FDR's new deal policies now.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

Oh i didn't know Republicans favored FDR's new deal policies now.

Nor did I know that the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush , or GW Bush administrations had managed to successfully take away social security. I must have missed that one.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

Oh i didn't know Republicans favored FDR's new deal policies now.

Jesus Christ youre stupid. I apologize in advance if youre drunk or english is your second language.

WHOOOOSH!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...s_health_care_overhaul

I found it very funny and interesting that the democrat can actually think of even the idea of fining people for not buying health insurance. People are against it, Obama seems to be against the idea too, then how come these call so democrat can think of such insane idea? These are suppose to be our representative, yet they don't even represent a fraction of what people really want.

People are against it because they don't understand why it's necessary. And the fact that YOU call it an "insane idea" is an indication of how limited your own understanding is.

Consider: Let's suppose you're young and in good health. So you decide to "take a chance" and save money by NOT purchasing health insurance. That works well for several years, but then - against the odds - you get cancer or contract AIDS and need expensive, ongoing treatment, OR you fall off a ledge and need major rehabilitative care.

You have no money, and your care costs several hundred thousand dollars. So, who pays for your medical care?

Right now, the insured would pay for your care, by way of higher premiums. Plus, there are government subsidies to the hospitals who care for you. In other words, you costs would be borne by the rest of us.

By forcing you to have medical insurance at some basic level, you become a part of the solution rather than one of the problems.

Also, by spreading the insurance pool among almost all Americans (the current guess is that 96% of Americans would be insured under various public and private plans if the UHC proposal passes), the cost of insurance for the sick or elderly or those with pre-existing conditions can be kept at a moderate level.

So the young would pay somewhat more than they cost to the system, but they would benefit as they get older and pay less than their cost to the system. Ultimately, over the life of the individual, the cost would be reasonable and fair.

One of the reasons our current system doesn't work is that the insurance companies cherry-pick only the healthy for private polices (rejecting those with "pre-existing conditions," even if those individuals have never been ill). Conversely, the young and healthy reverse cherry-pick and opt-out of insurance. Those two factors cause major problems, and ANY "solution" to our current health care mess cannot allow those factors to continue.

Thus, a mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance is just the opposite of insane. It's one of the few things that make sense. And most legislators - both those on the let AND those on the right - AGREE that it's necessary.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

Oh i didn't know Republicans favored FDR's new deal policies now.

Jesus Christ youre stupid. I apologize in advance if youre drunk or english is your second language.

WHOOOOSH!

This coming from the guy who thought taiwan was actually going to have a 4 trillion dollar deficit (probably about TEN TIMES THEIR GDP)? Really? REALLY?

Despite your inability to read, if you even thought about that, you would've come to a realization that really only 1 country in this world could have such a deficit and would have never made such a stupid error.

You're also a dishonest idiot if you think republicans in general aren't against social security and you comparing this to republicans thinking saddam had a link to 9/11

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blanghorst

And preying on naivete is how the Democrats survive. Your point? Both parties are disgraceful.

TEH REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY (repeat for 40 years)

/chuckle

Oh i didn't know Republicans favored FDR's new deal policies now.

Jesus Christ youre stupid. I apologize in advance if youre drunk or english is your second language.

WHOOOOSH!

This coming from the guy who thought taiwan was actually going to have a 4 trillion dollar deficit (probably about TEN TIMES THEIR GDP)? Really? REALLY?

If the best you can do is attack me by keeping on going back to an incident I not only admitted, in the same thread, I misread and was wrong about, AND apologized to the board for, then fuck you.

Have a fucked day.