Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
12 Mar 2017 9:05 pm
Yet another blatant lie with zero evidence to back it up, other than a few mere words from Trump.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 3:33 pm » wrote: Your Circus Peanut Messiah for one.
And just about everybody around him.
And right wing talking heads like Sean Hannity who gives Trump tongue baths on a regular basis.
Who has nominated some strong Russian critics for key positions.
12 Mar 2017 9:08 pm
If the press go on every trip, they'll know where he went and perhaps with whom he met.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 3:48 pm » wrote:
Is there any **** that you won't spew?
The press doesn't sit in on the private meetings jackass.
As one Senator said, "“The presence of a traveling press corps is vital for keeping the American people informed about a trip with significant implications for U.S. national security and economic prosperity,”
Besides, how do we show other countries that the US is committed to freedom of the press when our own SOS is traveling without reporters?
These are reporters nimrod, not people who work in State.
You have more excuses than a pile of **** has flies.
The press should usually go, but there are exceptions.
Democrat Talking Point Liars will turn anything and everything into a scandal.
12 Mar 2017 9:12 pm
It didn't talk about how expensive it is to make trolley cars either.Sgt Bilko » 12 Mar 2017 4:02 pm » wrote: That is just idiocy. What is not considered is the cost of doctor's offices. Insurance companies have doctors caught between their malpractice insurance and what patients insurance companies pay them. When you go into a doctor's office look around at all of the office help and equipment. The doctor's and nurse practioners have to support the office rent, utilities, equipment, salaries and benefits of all of the overhead workers. To reduce the overhead per doctor there are usually a few doctors in the office. A doctor who was a friend told me he had to see 30 patients a day to break even in an office with 4 other doctors. Medical professionals are forced to employ people whose job it is to meet the government requirements of HIPPA and billing requirements of insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicade. It is a nightmare of paperwork with a ton of codes required to correctly fill them out. There is a 1 year class to learn how to correctly use the codes!!
None of this was considered in this document!!
****' document.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:13 pm
FROM TODAY'S FOX NEWS SUNDAY
WALLACE: All right, we have to take a break here panel.
When we come back, and new headache for team Trump over former national security advisor Michael Flynn. What did they know about Flynn’s work for the Turkish government during the campaign?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re disappointed by the story?
PENCE: The first I heard of it and I think it is a -- it is an affirmation of the president's decision to ask General Flynn to resign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The Trump administration's tone towards former national security advisor Michael Flynn changing sharply after revelations he was paid to work on behalf of the Turkish government during the presidential campaign.
And we’re back now with the panel.
WALLACE: Well, let me reset for all of you, Michael Flynn was perhaps Donald Trump's top foreign policy advisor during the campaign, but he registered this week as a foreign agent for work he did at that same time, during the campaign, for the government of Turkey.
And it turns out the Trump transition, after the election, was told about this other job.
Julie, the White House says that the president, at any point in this process, as a candidate, as a president-elect and as president was never told that Michael Flynn was moonlighting, that he had another job.
Do you find that as hard to believe as I do?
PACE: I do because there were public reports about what Michael Flynn was doing.
Even after the election you had Elijah Cummings, a Democrat, sending a letter to Mike Pence asking the White House to look into this, raising questions about this.
And even if we do take the White House’s word on this and accept that no one passed this information on to Donald Trump, I'm not sure that makes it better because then you’re in a situation where you have the person was is now the White House counsel receiving word from Flynn’s lawyer that he may have to register as a foreign agent and not feeling as though that raised red flags about his participation at a high level in the White House, not raising that issue to the White House.
So I think either way the president was aware and didn't think it was concerning, or if top staffers didn't bring this to the White House, I don't think the Trump administration comes out looking very good here.
WALLACE: Do you think this fades away, I mean Flynn is gone, or do you think it stays?
PACE: Well, it is gone, but I think that this opens up a whole new avenue in terms of looking at Flynn and -- and what he was doing during the campaign and then during the transition and his brief time of the White House. We’ve been focused a lot on his conversations with the Russian ambassador, but now I think that we’re going to start to dig in more on what he was doing for this company that could have benefited the Turkish government.
WALLACE: Jason, maybe I'm old-fashioned -- I’m, in fact, I am old-fashioned, but I’ve got to say, I find it shocking that here is the top national security advisor to the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, one of the two people who's going to be president, who was participating in top secret, classified briefings and it turns out that he was working for another country at the same time.
RILEY: And not just another country, I mean Turkey isn't France or Britain. Turkey has taken a sharp turn for the worse in recent years. And so it's doubly disturbing, I think, that it -- that we’re talking about Turkey here. And we can only hope that the administration does a better job of vetting its other top officials.
The other thing that disturbed me about this episode was just the lack of communication among the administration. Here you had Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, out there still defending Flynn, saying his credentials are impeccable. Then you had the vice president telling Bret Baier, you know, what -- now you know why we fired him. I mean there -- there needs to be better communication in terms of messaging coming out of this administration. We've seen this on other issues before. I think they really need to get their act together.
WALLACE: To make the point, though, Flynn is saying that his lawyers notified -- during the transition, not during the campaign, but during the transition -- notified Don McGahn, who ended up as the White House counsel, about the fact that he had done this work and that he might -- and asking whether he needed to register as a foreign agent, which he ended up doing just this last week.
Is it conceivable to you that that information would not be passed on to the president-elect before he decides to make this man his national security advisor?
RILEY: No, it isn't. And either -- either -- I don’t -- either Trump did not appreciate the seriousness of this, or he didn't know about it.
PACE: And it’s --
RILEY: And I think it may be the former.
PACE: It’s important to note there was a second conversation also that happened after the inauguration when Flynn was already in the White House as national security advisor, where his lawyers told the White House Counsel’s office they were going to have to move forward with the foreign agent registration.
WALLACE: All right, we have to take a break here panel.
When we come back, and new headache for team Trump over former national security advisor Michael Flynn. What did they know about Flynn’s work for the Turkish government during the campaign?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re disappointed by the story?
PENCE: The first I heard of it and I think it is a -- it is an affirmation of the president's decision to ask General Flynn to resign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The Trump administration's tone towards former national security advisor Michael Flynn changing sharply after revelations he was paid to work on behalf of the Turkish government during the presidential campaign.
And we’re back now with the panel.
WALLACE: Well, let me reset for all of you, Michael Flynn was perhaps Donald Trump's top foreign policy advisor during the campaign, but he registered this week as a foreign agent for work he did at that same time, during the campaign, for the government of Turkey.
And it turns out the Trump transition, after the election, was told about this other job.
Julie, the White House says that the president, at any point in this process, as a candidate, as a president-elect and as president was never told that Michael Flynn was moonlighting, that he had another job.
Do you find that as hard to believe as I do?
PACE: I do because there were public reports about what Michael Flynn was doing.
Even after the election you had Elijah Cummings, a Democrat, sending a letter to Mike Pence asking the White House to look into this, raising questions about this.
And even if we do take the White House’s word on this and accept that no one passed this information on to Donald Trump, I'm not sure that makes it better because then you’re in a situation where you have the person was is now the White House counsel receiving word from Flynn’s lawyer that he may have to register as a foreign agent and not feeling as though that raised red flags about his participation at a high level in the White House, not raising that issue to the White House.
So I think either way the president was aware and didn't think it was concerning, or if top staffers didn't bring this to the White House, I don't think the Trump administration comes out looking very good here.
WALLACE: Do you think this fades away, I mean Flynn is gone, or do you think it stays?
PACE: Well, it is gone, but I think that this opens up a whole new avenue in terms of looking at Flynn and -- and what he was doing during the campaign and then during the transition and his brief time of the White House. We’ve been focused a lot on his conversations with the Russian ambassador, but now I think that we’re going to start to dig in more on what he was doing for this company that could have benefited the Turkish government.
WALLACE: Jason, maybe I'm old-fashioned -- I’m, in fact, I am old-fashioned, but I’ve got to say, I find it shocking that here is the top national security advisor to the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, one of the two people who's going to be president, who was participating in top secret, classified briefings and it turns out that he was working for another country at the same time.
RILEY: And not just another country, I mean Turkey isn't France or Britain. Turkey has taken a sharp turn for the worse in recent years. And so it's doubly disturbing, I think, that it -- that we’re talking about Turkey here. And we can only hope that the administration does a better job of vetting its other top officials.
The other thing that disturbed me about this episode was just the lack of communication among the administration. Here you had Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, out there still defending Flynn, saying his credentials are impeccable. Then you had the vice president telling Bret Baier, you know, what -- now you know why we fired him. I mean there -- there needs to be better communication in terms of messaging coming out of this administration. We've seen this on other issues before. I think they really need to get their act together.
WALLACE: To make the point, though, Flynn is saying that his lawyers notified -- during the transition, not during the campaign, but during the transition -- notified Don McGahn, who ended up as the White House counsel, about the fact that he had done this work and that he might -- and asking whether he needed to register as a foreign agent, which he ended up doing just this last week.
Is it conceivable to you that that information would not be passed on to the president-elect before he decides to make this man his national security advisor?
RILEY: No, it isn't. And either -- either -- I don’t -- either Trump did not appreciate the seriousness of this, or he didn't know about it.
PACE: And it’s --
RILEY: And I think it may be the former.
PACE: It’s important to note there was a second conversation also that happened after the inauguration when Flynn was already in the White House as national security advisor, where his lawyers told the White House Counsel’s office they were going to have to move forward with the foreign agent registration.
12 Mar 2017 9:14 pm
^This is what I like about Forbes.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 10:54 am » wrote:There Is Never A 'Free Market' In Health Care
“Where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition effective, we should resort to other methods of guiding economic activity.” - Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p.37
Republicans still struggle to promote a credible ownership culture largely because they refuse to wrestle honestly with the hard cases; the situations in which market forces fail to allocate value effectively.
Medical care is probably the most frustrating example since it stubbornly resists market solutions and affects everyone deeply.
Health care is not a market.
It lacks any of the vital features of a market.
Treating health care like a market means living and dying without modern medicine.
To advance a culture based on opportunity rather than government dependence, we need an alternative to state-owned health care that keeps key decisions in personal hands, preserves market triggers where appropriate, and rids us of the strangling influence of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Republicans cannot do this without abandoning some cherished fantasies about the unquestionable, divinely-ordained righteousness of markets.
In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent.
No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier.
No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all.
In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.
The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction.
When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile.
As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price.
All personal volition is lost.
Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.
Insurance is the obvious solution.
By agreeing to a transaction for insurance coverage at a time when I am healthy, I can in theory provide for my needs when I am ill.
But an insurance-funded medical system means abandoning an unregulated free market for health care.
The insurer-model creates a three-party managed market in which the patient has surrendered their buying power and much of their discretion to an entity whose interests are not aligned with their own.
Insurance companies don’t bleed.
Insurance companies don’t get pregnant.
Insurance companies don’t get cancer.
Insurance companies have certain needs and interests that will never line up squarely with their customers'.
I cannot represent my own needs in a conflict with my insurance company when I am seriously ill.
At the most critical moment I am at the mercy of an entity with interests at conflict with my own.
Despite the misaligned interests, an insurance-based health system can work quite well.
Private insurance coverage is the method most of the world uses to deliver universal health care.
But an insurance-driven system, even with private insurers and private health providers, cannot survive under unregulated, free market conditions.
We cannot maintain an insurance-based system of health care unless there is some force aligned with the consumer that has the superior authority and financial backing to hold the insurance providers to their end of the deal.
As I lie under that bus in the road, what if my insurance company refuses to pay for my care?
What if the insurer tried to intervene in my care to their own benefit instead of mine?
What if the company with which I contracted for insurance services collapses and cannot pay for my medical care when I need it?
Absent a competent regulatory scheme, patients, at the moment in which they make their insurance purchase, have no way to be certain which provider will actually deliver on their promise.
They will only discover the answer when their life, or the lives of their family members, depend on it.
Under an insurance system without effective, powerful regulation, the market forces that would exist in a face to face transaction between consumer (patient) and supplier (doctor) disappear, replaced with a grim gamble in which the insurance company has every incentive to cheat.
Modern health care with all its fancy instruments, amazing methods, and success in extending life and happiness only exists because we started abandoning the free market in medicine a century ago.
Go back to paying your doctor with chickens and your doctor will go back to being a part-timer who learned his craft from a book so he could augment his income from blacksmithing.
Does that mean we will eventually have to submit to a fully nationalized, single-payer health system controlled entirely by the federal government?
No, the developed world includes a kaleidoscope of different approaches to health care from single-payer to almost exclusively private.
They generally deliver better care at lower cost than ours.
Alternatives to our broken system are proven, established, and readily available.
So far, Republicans have refused to even look at them.
Less government does not necessarily mean more freedom.
Lower taxes do not necessarily produce faster growth.
It takes smart government to accomplish these goals.
Sometimes it takes a government program, a new tax, and an intelligent regulatory scheme to free up the next wave of innovation and individual initiative.
One of the most frustrating obstacles to the growth of a broader entrepreneurship culture in the US is the structure of our health care system.
It punishes innovators, chains employees to traditional work, and leaves millions of struggling Americans without access to care.
We count on Republicans to deliver pragmatic, sensible solutions that foster a culture of business growth, but when it comes to health care Republicans are off their meds.
Until the GOP is ready to move past their free market fundamentalist fantasies in health care and on other issues, our hopes of developing an ownership culture will remain stalled.
Chris Ladd, former GOP Precinct Committeeman, author of The Politics of Crazy and creator of PoliticalOrphans.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/ ... d8ab571147
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:16 pm
Thanks for confirming you didn't even read my source.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 4:09 pm » wrote: If I posted a Facebook post written by someone's friend as proof or anything you would dismiss it out of hand, and you know it.
So why is it that no one has been able to point out a single inaccuracy in the CNN story?
The source I cited pointed out that CNN missed many footnotes, then falsely claimed it was plagiarism in those instances.
The Anti-Trump Media’s Attack on Monica Crowley
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
My friend Monica Crowley was the subject of a major hit job by CNN a few weeks back. She is a serious scholar,
but she was portrayed as a serial plagiarist who never had an original idea in her head.
The emotional toll of the uproar caused her to withdraw from her appointment by President Trump to be the senior director of communications at the National Security Council.
It is the country’s loss. Over the last two decades, Monica has been one of the most effective commentators on the national scene regarding the geopolitical challenges confronting the United States, and in particular the phenomenon of jihadist terror catalyzed by sharia-supremacist ideology — radical Islam. As much as anyone I’ve encountered, she has been invaluable: communicating the threats, debating them, and defending sensible national-security measures. All writers make mistakes.
But Monica’s have been blown wildly out of proportion, to the point of smear.....
As Ms. Chu concluded:
I found CNN’s splashy “plagiarism” accusation to be ill-supported — a heavily exaggerated, political hit job.
Instead, after reading texts side by side with footnotes, I came away impressed by the very high quality and care taken by Ms. Crowley in her writing, scholarship and research overall. Many parallels in fact read on the page as rather different even if certain content or phrases were the same, and they were largely short, fragmentary, and routine.
Historical research inevitably draws heavily on the work of other scholars. Dissertations exist to synthesize. The relatively few examples of unsourced copying found was in my opinion de minimus, should just be corrected, and not allowed to besmirch Ms. Crowley’s reputation.
\
According to Ms. Chu, CNN itemized 37 passages out of the 461 dissertation pages as improperly mined from the work of others without sourcing; but 26 of these items were “straightforwardly false” because, in order to make Monica look like a plagiarist, CNN omitted her footnotes. As Chu writes:
Ms. Crowley’s paraphrases were correctly sourced in her footnotes. But in most of these 26, CNN had omitted her footnote references. CNN hid from readers that her footnotes gave proper credit to the source.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... ca-crowley
F*** you, lying psycho.She has a long, long history of plagiarism.
Once again you have proven that you will defend wrongdoing by anyone who carries an R after their name.
12 Mar 2017 9:21 pm
Well, if her LAWYER says she's innocent, who am I to disagree?Termin8tor » 12 Mar 2017 9:16 pm » wrote:
Thanks for confirming you didn't even read my source.
The source I cited pointed out that CNN missed many footnotes, then falsely claimed it was plagiarism in those instances.
F*** you, lying psycho.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever served on a Los Angeles jury? Say, on the OJ Simpson case, for example?
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:27 pm
Did you read any of the substance in that source?Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2017 9:21 pm » wrote: Well, if her LAWYER says she's innocent, who am I to disagree?
No? Then don't waste my time, psycho.
12 Mar 2017 9:28 pm
Who said it was her lawyer, Dim?Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2017 9:21 pm » wrote:Well, if her LAWYER says she's innocent, who am I to disagree?
Thanks for playing.
12 Mar 2017 9:35 pm
If it quacks like a duck, clemjob.
Who said she wasn't?
That's the problem with folks that think facebook is a "source." It is astounding what passes for a "source" with clowns like you. It took me less than an hours to compile the list of your tripe, son.
Clem, "sourcing" -
Termin8tor[/url][url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]» 06 Aug 2015 6:33 pm » wrote: Not even liberal pundits are so stupid as to claim
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 15 Oct 2015 3:50 pm » wrote: I'm recalling from memory, wackjob, and given that it was decades ago ...I'm likely correct.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 15 Jun 2015 9:16 am » wrote: I've for many, many, many years cited sources to back up my claims.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 15 Oct 2015 4:46 pm » wrote: Reality isn't determined by a link, Dim.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 04 Jun 2015 2:39 pm » wrote: Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 23 Sep 2015 8:45 am » wrote: Anyone with eyes knows
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 12 May 2015 6:50 pm » wrote: Gosh, who should we believe, the babbling, lying psychotic?
Or the best minds on Economics and history?
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 13 Nov 2015 2:24 pm » wrote: Anyone who lived through that era or has read extensively about it knows
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 07 May 2015 10:54 am » wrote: Only a psychotic would deny
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 21 Oct 2015 9:06 am » wrote: No honest person would claim
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 13 Oct 2015 8:57 pm » wrote: I bring more sources to the board than perhaps anyone. I have proved almost every claim I've made.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 10 Oct 2015 5:34 pm » wrote: Anyone who's followed politics knows that.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 04 Nov 2015 10:48 am » wrote: Only a leftist liar would call a hugely successful developer like Trump a "nutjob."
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 07 May 2015 10:07 am » wrote: No one except a fringe leftist/and or psychotic would claim
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 05 Jan 2015 8:58 am » wrote: That's widely acknowledged by mainstream sources.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 18 Jul 2015 5:59 am » wrote: ...the moonbat who denies the widely accepted fact
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 18 Oct 2015 1:10 pm » wrote: from what I understand. Babbling psychotic imbecile.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 25 Sep 2014 10:52 am » wrote: ...admit obvious, widely accepted reality.
[url=http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=541870#p541870]Termin8tor[/url] » 27 Aug 2015 12:54 pm » wrote: Blah, blah, blah, the endless bleating of a lying psychotic.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:35 pm
I did read it jackass.Termin8tor » 12 Mar 2017 9:16 pm » wrote:Thanks for confirming you didn't even read my source.
The source I cited pointed out that CNN missed many footnotes, then falsely claimed it was plagiarism in those instances. F*** you, lying psycho.
There was a link to it in my source which you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ.
The font in blue are links to McCarthy's article and Lynn Chu's Facebook post.
She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
12 Mar 2017 9:39 pm
Oh wow, that's just so clever.Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2017 9:35 pm » wrote: If it quacks like a duck, clemjob.
Who said she wasn't?
So you didn't read the source, so now you're writing bulls***.
There's a surprise.
I could care less what idiocy you babble.That's the problem with folks that think facebook is a "source." It is astounding what passes for a "source" with clowns like you. It took me less than an hours to compile the list of your tripe, son.
Clem, "sourcing" -
I cite credible sources.
You cite your the confused ramblings of your ignorant, confused mind.
12 Mar 2017 9:41 pm
Hey, clem, you *******:
She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
You heard it here first, dipstick.
She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
You heard it here first, dipstick.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:42 pm
Yes, yes, clemjob. "Even a blind man can see" is a very credible source!Termin8tor » 12 Mar 2017 9:39 pm » wrote:
Oh wow, that's just so clever.
So you didn't read the source, so now you're writing bulls***.
There's a surprise.
I could care less what idiocy you babble.
I cite credible sources.
You cite your the confused ramblings of your ignorant, confused mind.
"Even prominent leftists agree" is an unshakably solid source, clemjob!
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
12 Mar 2017 9:44 pm
If you read my source, you'd have seen how CNN tried to deceive viewers with a dishonest presentation. Two thirds of what they called plagiarism actually had footnotes.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 9:35 pm » wrote: I did read it jackass.
There was a link to it in my source which you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ.
This is the usual dishonest Fake News hit job on a conservative that CNN and other corrupt MSM outlets regularly do, as they cover up literal crimes for Democrats like Clinton.
Given that you've been caught in this lie, as well as countless others, I won't bother chasing down your other ones.She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
You're a psychopath, so it's impossible to keep up with them.
12 Mar 2017 9:45 pm
Well you're an impeccable source, so it must be true.Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2017 9:41 pm » wrote:Hey, clem, you *******:
She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
You heard it here first, dipstick.
12 Mar 2017 10:07 pm
Oh my gosh, what a huge scandal you've found.#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 9:13 pm » wrote: RILEY: No, it isn't. And either -- either -- I don’t -- either Trump did not appreciate the seriousness of this, or he didn't know about it.
Trump "did not appreciate the full seriousness of it."
How does that compare to the Clinton's receiving millions and millions of dollars for selling access and favors?
Imbecile.
12 Mar 2017 10:22 pm
If you don't use dildo I don't use whore.
12 Mar 2017 10:29 pm
Poor Misty obviously has no understanding of how footnotes work. They point out where direct quotes come from making them NOT PAGIERISM!!#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 9:35 pm » wrote: I did read it jackass.
There was a link to it in my source which you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ.
The font in blue are links to McCarthy's article and Lynn Chu's Facebook post.
She has been plagiarizing others people's work going back decades, and as I pointed out, not just in her book, but also in her PhD dissertation and in newspaper columns.
CNN modified the document in order to create the lie that the document was plagiarized in order to discredit Crowley!! MSM very biased reporting creating a lie to try and discredit conservative people!!! That is normal for liberal MSM news agencies!!! That is why Misty loves those very biased and lying news agencies!!!
POOR DELUDED MISTY!!!
12 Mar 2017 11:31 pm
Every Republican Lie About Passing Obamacare Is True About Repealing It
In March 2010, right before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, opponents of health-care reform had spent months spreading falsehoods about its contents and whipping up hysterical predictions about socialism and the end of freedom.
In a speech touting the bill, Nancy Pelosi argued that the atmosphere had prevented the public from understanding what the bill actually did, and expressed her hope that the vote would put an end to the fevered atmosphere and give away to a calm analysis of its actual impact:
Conservatives made a part of the last sentence — “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” — famous, possibly the most famous line from the entire health-care debate.
Conservatives turned that sentence fragment into an emblem for their claim that Obamacare was passed in the dead of night through a secretive, rushed, undemocratic process.
They claim this even now.
Just today, Andrew Ferguson attacks that he calls “[t]he creepy, authoritarian manner in which the legislation was passed,” and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel claims, “Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in lobbyist-filled backrooms, forgoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans.”
This is a bizarre description of a bill that spent a year working through Congress, eventually passing numerous committees, two full House majority votes, one Senate supermajority vote and, in fact, many, many, many hearings.
While the law did use a budget-reconciliation bill to enact minor fiscal adjustments, a maneuver that Republicans decried as akin to a death blow to the Republic, in fact its major provisions all received 60 votes in the Senate.
The bill was evaluated by the independent Congressional Budget Office, and the projected premium levels in the new exchanges turned out to be accurate, and its predictions of overall federal health spending turned out to be too pessimistic, as the federal government is now spending less on health care with Obamacare than it was projected to spend without it.
The bill was enacted in a democratic, deliberate, transparent, and excruciatingly slow fashion.
But the claims that conservatives have falsely made about passing Obamacare provide a true description of the Republican plan to undo it.
They are rushing through a bill to repeal it with maximal speed, and no public deliberation.
That might be defensible if Republicans had promised the public that electing them would mean simple repeal and a restoration of the health-care system as it existed before 2010.
The conservative health-care journalist Philip Klein laments that Republicans are “having a tough time stating a simple truth, which goes something like this: We don’t believe that it is the job of the federal government to guarantee that everybody has health insurance.’”
A small-government conservative party with Klein’s honesty would have made the case that they simply don’t believe the federal government has a responsibility to assure access to medical care for all.
The argument framed by Klein does describe the actual policy agenda of the Republican Party, which has worked for years to eliminate or minimize the government’s commitment to expanding health coverage.
But Republicans haven’t run on a promise anything like this.
Instead, they have insisted since the outset of the debate that they, too, wanted reform.
Donald Trump repeatedly promised that his health-care plan would “take care of everybody.”
“We don’t want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance,” says senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.
So how do they solve the problem?
By promising that after Obamacare is repealed, and only then, they will show the country the wonderful system that will replace it.
“We have a plan to replace it.
We have plenty of ideas to replace it.
And you’ll see as the weeks and months unfold, what we’re talking about replacing it,” promises Paul Ryan.
Asked if his plan will cover everybody, Ryan demurs, “Look, I’m not going to get ahead of our committee process.
We’re just beginning to put this together.” Ryan insists they have a plan, and also insists he cannot describe the plan because it is just beginning to take shape.
The “plan” exists rhetorically for the purposes of assuring people there is a plan.
But Ryan and his party are unwilling to produce anything that can be compared to the status quo.
Republicans say you have to vote to wreck the status quo before they will tell you what comes next.
That is why they are rushing a repeal bill through, without any hearings or deliberation, or public accountability about their plan.
All the untrue things they said about the passage of Obamacare are true of the passage of their plan.
After screaming about the use of a filibuster-evading reconciliation bill to pass minor changes to Obamacare, Republicans plan to use reconciliation for the entirety of their repeal.
It is a naked abuse of the legislative process.
You have to pass their bill to find out what’s in it.
Who is online
In total there are 3853 users online :: 4 registered, 13 bots, and 3836 guests
Bots: LCC, Not, Bolt, DuckDuckBot, ADmantX, proximic, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit, bingbot, Applebot, curl/7