Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Camden, AR

#29289 Feb 14, 2014
Take the partisan politics out of the studies and you get the real picture of what policies do in the real world. I have always said that GIVING people more money makes them poorer. I usually use this in reference to welfare but it applies here too.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/he...

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29290 Feb 14, 2014
scarlett o hara wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, Barney. I'm not making excuses. A quick look back over your posts from even just yesterday show that you discredit, distort, and make a debacle of anything from an opinion, to a news report, to the actual words of a Democratic United States Senator...one of your very own...if it doesn't tickle your ear.
Your blatant disregard of truth, and the inept and pitiful ways you try to turn truth into the lies that your little mind has been trained to believe are transparent and laughable.
You are the one that has been proven wrong for the last few days about this topic of oil, accidents, numbers, causes and effects, environmet, economics, and logistics, yet you continue to profess wisdom and accuracy. You are neither wise nor accurate, but you are a fool. And you do know what they say about arguing with a fool...maybe you should continue you conversation in the mirror. That is where you will find the answers you seek that will tickle your ear and make you ever so happy...
And if that doesn't work, I've got some tar balls that I picked up from the White sand beaches of the Gulf that I can throw at you...
LMAO, you have no more knowledge of the Keystone than the Republican propaganda you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

I will give you credit for one thing, you'er obviously smart enough not to repeat it to me.

I know what other Republicans are saying, just thought I might learn something new from a ultra smart individual like your self.

Then again you have all the answers, till presented with a Questions, then the best you can do is show fear, and avoid the question.

“Frankly my dear...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#29291 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible speaks to the way to handle a fool. Proverbs 26: 4-5 says this'
4. Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
5. Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.
In other words, no matter what you say, a fool will always be a fool.
Barney must have been in the mind of the one that said,
"There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions
And those who won't."

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29292 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. What better reason do you need? Unless, of course, you believe the lie that the 6.6% UE means that only 6.6% of American's are out of work. As a side note, as it has been shown to you over and over, there is not much risk to people's lives though you refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit the narrative your party is putting out

.
Is that your answer, "jobs" ? How many?

BTW- you could have given me that answer to me under one of your other names, as I have said repeatedly, you are just as lacking under one name as you are the other.

Personally, based on the way the data is gathered for the U E numbers I would say that 6.6% of all Americans (actively looking for work) is unemployed.

6.6% UE means that only 6.6% of American's are out of work"

I agree, that statement is a lie, " all Americans" are not eligible to be in the work force and others are not of their own volition.

"6.6% Of all Americans unemployed", yep I would say that is a lie, that number is way to low.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29293 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
Take the partisan politics out of the studies and you get the real picture of what policies do in the real world. I have always said that GIVING people more money makes them poorer. I usually use this in reference to welfare but it applies here too.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/he...
I agree somewhat with your statement as far as the poor are concerned, the numbers that leads me to that conclusion are below.

The poor did not become any more poor, than they already were, just more of them, all the while the rich got richer.

Can't argue with the numbers, the poor got a little more help to survive, and the rich some how came up with the bulk of the money.

The last mim. wage hike was also accompanied by FIVE BILLION in tax cuts for small businesses.

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED-

As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19%(the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80%(wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29294 Feb 14, 2014
scarlett o hara wrote:
<quoted text>
Barney must have been in the mind of the one that said,
"There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions
And those who won't."
You know what, I have yet to see you change any of your opinions since you have been hanging out around here, several name changes, that's another story.


Being that, not one nor the other, has changed their opinions, would pretty much make us about even in that regard would it not.

So, are we both fools ?

Or would that make me the one who does not change their opinion, and you the mental midget who has a penchant for making statements with a complete lack foresight as you just did.

Lack of foresight to tell us the virtues of a Canadian pipeline carrying tar sands to the gulf of Mexico.

You know it's a good thing, because the Republicans said it was, other than that you are clueless right?

You do understand the question is a rhetorical one, right?

LOL, sure you do!
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29295 Feb 14, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that your answer, "jobs" ? How many?
BTW- you could have given me that answer to me under one of your other names, as I have said repeatedly, you are just as lacking under one name as you are the other.
Personally, based on the way the data is gathered for the U E numbers I would say that 6.6% of all Americans (actively looking for work) is unemployed.
6.6% UE means that only 6.6% of American's are out of work"
I agree, that statement is a lie, " all Americans" are not eligible to be in the work force and others are not of their own volition.
"6.6% Of all Americans unemployed", yep I would say that is a lie, that number is way to low.
How many jobs? That is an impossible thing to quantify. The only thing that would be quantifiable is those working directly on the pipeline itself. I would say the ripple effect would create thousands of other jobs all along the route of the pipeline. Jobs from restaurants, housing, clothing, or a host of other things those that do that type of work need while they are in a given town. If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, I only use RC. There are no other names I use on this site or any other site. Or the other Americans that want work but there are no jobs to be had so they get discouraged and quit looking.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29296 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
How many jobs? That is an impossible thing to quantify. The only thing that would be quantifiable is those working directly on the pipeline itself. I would say the ripple effect would create thousands of other jobs all along the route of the pipeline. Jobs from restaurants, housing, clothing, or a host of other things those that do that type of work need while they are in a given town. If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, I only use RC. There are no other names I use on this site or any other site. Or the other Americans that want work but there are no jobs to be had so they get discouraged and quit looking.

Nice dance, the prior post you were rather adamant about - " jobs, jobs ,jobs,- now that your feet is held to the fire you do a little dance.

Do you really think a pipe line crew trying to lay the maximum amount of pipe in day is going to be in any community to make a lasting effect on the economy?

A pipeline crew that will be jobless at the end of this job in a couple years.

We both know why you steered this conversation away from the permanent jobs it would create don't we?

"the Keystone XL would create only 35 permanent jobs after the one or two years of construction jobs dry up"

The name has changed, but the lack of foresight, and damn little else has changed.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29297 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
How many jobs? That is an impossible thing to quantify. The only thing that would be quantifiable is those working directly on the pipeline itself. I would say the ripple effect would create thousands of other jobs all along the route of the pipeline. Jobs from restaurants, housing, clothing, or a host of other things those that do that type of work need while they are in a given town. If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, I only use RC. There are no other names I use on this site or any other site. Or the other Americans that want work but there are no jobs to be had so they get discouraged and quit looking.

Here is your, "ripple effect", and how it creates jobs .

BRAD JOHNSON ON NOVEMBER 10, 2011 AT 10:37 AM

“Truckloads of pipe from Canada are arriving daily in Gascoyne, ND where they are being stockpiled,” Radio-Canada reported Monday. TransCanada refused to name the companies producing the pipe, raising concerns the sections may have been manufactured in China or India.

Pipeline defects have been identified along a 60-mile stretch of the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, north of the Sabine River in Texas (Winnsboro, Texas). &#8232;Sections of pipe have dents, faulty welds, and pin-holes in some sections enough to see daylight through.

The installers have been digging up parts of the new southern segment of the Keystone pipeline that only recently have been installed. &#8232;It seems that the existing leg of the Keystone has spilled more oil in its first year than any other first-year pipeline in U.S. history (HuffPost)

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29298 Feb 14, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dance, the prior post you were rather adamant about - " jobs, jobs ,jobs,- now that your feet is held to the fire you do a little dance.
Do you really think a pipe line crew trying to lay the maximum amount of pipe in day is going to be in any community to make a lasting effect on the economy?
A pipeline crew that will be jobless at the end of this job in a couple years.
We both know why you steered this conversation away from the permanent jobs it would create don't we?
"the Keystone XL would create only 35 permanent jobs after the one or two years of construction jobs dry up"
The name has changed, but the lack of foresight, and damn little else has changed.
Correction- in any community (long enough) to make a diff.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29299 Feb 14, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your, "ripple effect", and how it creates jobs .
BRAD JOHNSON ON NOVEMBER 10, 2011 AT 10:37 AM
“Truckloads of pipe from Canada are arriving daily in Gascoyne, ND where they are being stockpiled,” Radio-Canada reported Monday. TransCanada refused to name the companies producing the pipe, raising concerns the sections may have been manufactured in China or India.
Pipeline defects have been identified along a 60-mile stretch of the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, north of the Sabine River in Texas (Winnsboro, Texas). &#8232;Sections of pipe have dents, faulty welds, and pin-holes in some sections enough to see daylight through.
The installers have been digging up parts of the new southern segment of the Keystone pipeline that only recently have been installed. &#8232;It seems that the existing leg of the Keystone has spilled more oil in its first year than any other first-year pipeline in U.S. history (HuffPost)
Are you going to get to a point that counters what I said or are you going to continue to talk about spills?
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29300 Feb 14, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree somewhat with your statement as far as the poor are concerned, the numbers that leads me to that conclusion are below.
The poor did not become any more poor, than they already were, just more of them, all the while the rich got richer.
Can't argue with the numbers, the poor got a little more help to survive, and the rich some how came up with the bulk of the money.
The last mim. wage hike was also accompanied by FIVE BILLION in tax cuts for small businesses.
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED-
As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19%(the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80%(wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).
Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%
Did you notice that the larges drop in the bottom 80% which is almost 4% happened under Barack Obama? How did that happen under the champion of the middle and lower class? The upper 1% also grew under Obama. It looks to me as though your table proves that a minimum wage is oppressive and greatly reduces the opportunity for a country to grow.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29301 Feb 14, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dance, the prior post you were rather adamant about - " jobs, jobs ,jobs,- now that your feet is held to the fire you do a little dance.
Do you really think a pipe line crew trying to lay the maximum amount of pipe in day is going to be in any community to make a lasting effect on the economy?
A pipeline crew that will be jobless at the end of this job in a couple years.
We both know why you steered this conversation away from the permanent jobs it would create don't we?
"the Keystone XL would create only 35 permanent jobs after the one or two years of construction jobs dry up"
The name has changed, but the lack of foresight, and damn little else has changed.
It's impossible to quantify because who knows what town will need to increase what sectors in order to facilitate the needs of the workers coming through while the pipeline is being constructed in the given town. As for me steering you away from the lasting effect of the project, I wasn't. I know the only permanent jobs will be the added shipping jobs in the gulf at the refineries and the shipping industry that carries the final product. Forbes magazine says: "Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline will in fact create jobs (an unknown number), facilitate long term economic development, enhance state revenues, and bring the United States closer to energy security." Now you are pointing fingers at me about permanent jobs when your leader has spouted off about 8.5 million jobs created under his presidency yet there are less people working today than ever before. How is that possible? Maybe the jobs he is bragging about were temporary though he touts them as permanent? Surly you didn't believe that the 8.5 million jobs (if there were even that many) are still around?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29302 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to get to a point that counters what I said or are you going to continue to talk about spills?

See post # 29296

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29303 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible to quantify because who knows what town will need to increase what sectors in order to facilitate the needs of the workers coming through while the pipeline is being constructed in the given town. As for me steering you away from the lasting effect of the project, I wasn't. I know the only permanent jobs will be the added shipping jobs in the gulf at the refineries and the shipping industry that carries the final product. Forbes magazine says: "Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline will in fact create jobs (an unknown number), facilitate long term economic development, enhance state revenues, and bring the United States closer to energy security." Now you are pointing fingers at me about permanent jobs when your leader has spouted off about 8.5 million jobs created under his presidency yet there are less people working today than ever before. How is that possible? Maybe the jobs he is bragging about were temporary though he touts them as permanent? Surly you didn't believe that the 8.5 million jobs (if there were even that many) are still around?

How many people are employed in the U S A today ?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29304 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible to quantify because who knows what town will need to increase what sectors in order to facilitate the needs of the workers coming through while the pipeline is being constructed in the given town. As for me steering you away from the lasting effect of the project, I wasn't. I know the only permanent jobs will be the added shipping jobs in the gulf at the refineries and the shipping industry that carries the final product. Forbes magazine says: "Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline will in fact create jobs (an unknown number), facilitate long term economic development, enhance state revenues, and bring the United States closer to energy security." Now you are pointing fingers at me about permanent jobs when your leader has spouted off about 8.5 million jobs created under his presidency yet there are less people working today than ever before. How is that possible? Maybe the jobs he is bragging about were temporary though he touts them as permanent? Surly you didn't believe that the 8.5 million jobs (if there were even that many) are still around?

" yet there are less people working today than ever before"

That Sir is total Bull Shit.

I will give you One chance to correct this lie, if you can, before I do it for you.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29305 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that the larges drop in the bottom 80% which is almost 4% happened under Barack Obama? How did that happen under the champion of the middle and lower class? The upper 1% also grew under Obama. It looks to me as though your table proves that a minimum wage is oppressive and greatly reduces the opportunity for a country to grow.
How did that happen, since you ask I will tell you, and you keep the blame it on Bush, BS, to yourself.

In Jan., 2008, the USA began to loose jobs and continued to loose jobs till Jan., 2010 .

We have had minimum wage laws since 1938, seems unlikely to me and "oppressive" law that greatly reduced the opportunity for a country to grow would still be in existence 76 years later.
barney stockyards stocker

Calico Rock, AR

#29306 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
" yet there are less people working full time jobs today than ever before"
That Sir is total Bull Shit.
I will give you One chance to catch me, if you can, before I do it to you.
Wipe that BS off your shoes Barney.
So you just got home after your midnight trip to see those lovey sheep and goats at the Salem Livestock Auction.
Those new high water Gum boots are working well for you,how you just stick the back leg of your intended down each boot and the romance begins!
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#29307 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
How did that happen, since you ask I will tell you, and you keep the blame it on Bush, BS, to yourself.
In Jan., 2008, the USA began to loose jobs and continued to loose jobs till Jan., 2010 .
We have had minimum wage laws since 1938, seems unlikely to me and "oppressive" law that greatly reduced the opportunity for a country to grow would still be in existence 76 years later.
One thing I noticed in your statistics is who was president for 2 of those three years? Now you keep the blame it on Bush stuff to yourself. As for things that don't do any good but are still around, the Great Society is a great example of a failed experiment that still burdens us today more than ever. The great society was meant to help the poor (mainly blacks) and 49 years later we are worse off than we were then.

*60 percent of black children grow up in fatherless homes.

*800,000 black men are in jail or prison.

*70 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers.

*Over 300,000 black babies are aborted annually.

*50 percent of new AIDS cases are in the black community.

*Almost half of young black men in America's cities are neither working nor in school. What we have here is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

These statistics are in our face yet we are spending more in welfare programs than ever before. Why is that? One would think that with the opposite of what was intended happening, we would move to something else, yet here we are throwing money into a bottomless pit. The same goes for the minimum wage and you know it.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29308 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
" yet there are less people working today than ever before"
That Sir is total Bull Shit.
I will give you One chance to correct this lie, if you can, before I do it for you.
You are correct. I owe you a huge apology. Thanks for giving me one chance to correct my lie. It was in January 2010 that the real unemployment rate hit 18% under Obama's watch though he has improved that number to 13.50%(still higher than any other time in history). Please forgive me. I am SO glad that I have someone like you to draw the real truth out of me like the REAL unemployment rate.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Snow-Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Arkansas (... (Oct '10) Jan '17 Rockie 69

Snow-Lake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Snow-Lake Mortgages