Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Wait what

Galion, OH

#31434 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity founded on birth control?!? Here you go with the fiction again. You are awesome
Or, we could go back to every American being guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is your definition of being guaranteed life?
Wait what

Galion, OH

#31435 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, let's return to the "good old days" before Social Security, when more than half of senior citizens lived in poverty.
"Today, Social Security is the nation’s single most important anti-poverty tool – lifting about 21.4 million people of all ages out of poverty. Social Security lifts about 35 percent of older Americans (almost 14.5 million) out of poverty by providing a regular, guaranteed retirement income. Thanks to Social Security, only about 8.7 percent of Americans aged 65 and over—and many of these are not beneficiaries—fall below the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds ."
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/07/01/social-securi...
<quoted text>
Yes, and the choice to enact Social Security had the consequence of lifting million out of poverty.
<quoted text>
Those who have been here for a while know that I almost always document my statements with links to nonpartisan sources.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of strong opinions, but little evidence for what you say.
I know a lot of folks on Social Security who are living in subsidized housing and receive both Medicaid/Medicare, as well as food bank help. They also do without meds. Your definition of poverty must be different than mine, since the average income for a single female is $13,000. Not sure how you can live on that.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#31436 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so to make your point, you went all the way back to 1993-1994?
The book he wrote won him children's author of the year award and I'm sure the book was checked out carefully. I think what you and Canton do is use your hatred of the man to try and put down his very successful children's book.
Looking for criticisms of his book I searched through FactCheck, Snopes, Politico and a few others including PBS. Nothing negative or challenging about Rush Revere.
On the other hand, Hillarious's book was a total flop and the publishing company is going to take a huge hit because of the millions they fronted her.
Success vs Failure, and liberals will choose failure on any given day.
HAHAHAHAHA. Pathetic.
Wait what

Galion, OH

#31437 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, let's return to the "good old days" before Social Security, when more than half of senior citizens lived in poverty.
"Today, Social Security is the nation’s single most important anti-poverty tool – lifting about 21.4 million people of all ages out of poverty. Social Security lifts about 35 percent of older Americans (almost 14.5 million) out of poverty by providing a regular, guaranteed retirement income. Thanks to Social Security, only about 8.7 percent of Americans aged 65 and over—and many of these are not beneficiaries—fall below the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds ."
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/07/01/social-securi...
<quoted text>
Yes, and the choice to enact Social Security had the consequence of lifting million out of poverty.
<quoted text>
Those who have been here for a while know that I almost always document my statements with links to nonpartisan sources.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of strong opinions, but little evidence for what you say.
At least I know to look at the true census numbers instead of believing a partisan organization.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/c...
Canton

Canton, OH

#31438 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity founded on birth control?!? Here you go with the fiction again. You are awesome
Do you think perhaps that I was saying that Christianity was based on the Holy Bible? Man, I wish you were just being sarcastic, but your track record tells us that you really are that dense.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31439 Jul 13, 2014
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Or, we could go back to every American being guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is your definition of being guaranteed life?
I don't know what Pop's thinks, but a liberal would probably tell you: gun control, SNAP's card, Obama phone, HUD house in the suburbs and Obama Care. LOL!

I mean......what a life... LOL!
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31440 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what Pop's thinks, but a liberal would probably tell you: gun control, SNAP's card, Obama phone, HUD house in the suburbs and Obama Care. LOL!
I mean......what a life... LOL!
Keep setting up those strawmen, TR.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31441 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so to make your point, you went all the way back to 1993-1994?
Sorry, Ray, but you were asking about books we read. Those are the books by Rush that I actually read. I know he did some children's books recently, but I haven't read them. Have you? I don't tend to read children's books. Has Rush written anything for adults lately? If he has, I haven't heard about them.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, Hillarious's book was a total flop ...
Do you really think I care about how Hillary's book is doing? Books by (trying to be) Presidents tend to suck. Remember Jim Carter's "Why Not the Best?" They aren't books, they are infomercials.

So, Ray, I'm curious. Do you read books? My guess would be "no" (because very few people read books these days.) If you do read, what's the last fiction book you read? I enjoyed reading "One Hundred Years of Solitude". In the nonfiction category, I've been reading "The Great American Broadcast", which is about the early days of radio, when it was still live dramas and comedies (revisiting my lost youth!) I think you might enjoy both of them.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31442 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Nancy's statement, even out of content, stands on it's own.
Not sure if you were making a joke there or not...

But context is important. Here's a public figure from long ago responding to a reporter's question:

Q. "Has this trip changed your views any about Latin America and your policies? Do you see any perspectives differently after this trip?

A. "you know, they're all individual countries."

Does this out of context response "stand on its own"?
lazy bones

South Webster, OH

#31443 Jul 13, 2014
Turd fart
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31444 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Ray, but you were asking about books we read. Those are the books by Rush that I actually read. I know he did some children's books recently, but I haven't read them. Have you? I don't tend to read children's books. Has Rush written anything for adults lately? If he has, I haven't heard about them.
<quoted text>
Do you really think I care about how Hillary's book is doing? Books by (trying to be) Presidents tend to suck. Remember Jim Carter's "Why Not the Best?" They aren't books, they are infomercials.
So, Ray, I'm curious. Do you read books? My guess would be "no" (because very few people read books these days.) If you do read, what's the last fiction book you read? I enjoyed reading "One Hundred Years of Solitude". In the nonfiction category, I've been reading "The Great American Broadcast", which is about the early days of radio, when it was still live dramas and comedies (revisiting my lost youth!) I think you might enjoy both of them.
If it's not on a computer screen, I don't read it. LOL!

I'm sorry but like most Americans, I've become an addict to the internet. I don't have a lot of time on my hands between my job and this place, but when I do read, it's here.

I was never much of a reader though. My mind kind of drifts off and I become board very quickly. For some people, reading is enjoyment, for others, it's a chore. And no, I never bought or read Limbaugh's books. Actually I get annoyed by all the advertising he does on his show about it.

I just find it a little unfair that people criticize what they didn't read. It's no different than when I post a link and I get "Oh, it's from blah, blah, blah" and they never bothered to look at it nor challenge it. If it's from Fox, Hannity, Breibart of whatever, so it's automatically discarded and end of conversation.
Exactly XXX

Lithonia, GA

#31445 Jul 13, 2014
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31446 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure if you were making a joke there or not...
But context is important. Here's a public figure from long ago responding to a reporter's question:
Q. "Has this trip changed your views any about Latin America and your policies? Do you see any perspectives differently after this trip?
A. "you know, they're all individual countries."
Does this out of context response "stand on its own"?
Sry OG, I was not making a joke. If one includes Pelosi's preamble & post words to her statement, in this case it I don't see that it makes any difference. I was simply being brief & I don't think too brief.
Your 'example' question is an apple/oranges comparison since Pelosi was not answering questions & was basically giving a speech without overt pressure.
But I will say that in your example question, it would appear that the respondent was being evasive or not understanding of the question or wanting to qualify the question or the answer.
But again, Nancy was not answering questions. She was speaking her own words & thoughts without interference. As I see it, one of her few candid moments.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31447 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I was never much of a reader though. My mind kind of drifts off and I become board very quickly.
Those are the times we live in. Everything is reduced to little nuggets of information/entertainment because it's hard to hold most people's attention for very long.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
For some people, reading is enjoyment, for others, it's a chore.
Yes, you are right about that. I've always been a fast reader and I can easily get lost in a good book. But I know that's not typical these days.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And no, I never bought or read Limbaugh's books. Actually I get annoyed by all the advertising he does on his show about it.
They are a lot like his early radio show. I read them back in the 90s. I never thought that he would become the influential person he is now. I remembering thinking back at the time that he was just a chubby "Joe Pyne" clone. He didn't seem to be very deep, but he certainly struck a chord with Republicans back then. He's had an amazingly run since then.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31448 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Sry OG, I was not making a joke.
It was just a funny typo then.
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>
But I will say that in your example question, it would appear that the respondent was being evasive or not understanding of the question or wanting to qualify the question or the answer.
I was just trying to show you that most complicated statements don't "stand alone" --- context is very important. The quote I gave you came from Ronald Reagan. Within context, I think Reagan comes off pretty well.

"Q. Has this trip changed your views any about Latin America and your policies? Do you see any perspectives differently after this trip?

The President. Well, I learned a lot, because that's what I went to do, is—I didn't go down there with any plan for the Americas or anything. I went down to find out from them and their views. And you'd be surprised, yes, because, you know, they're all individual countries. I think one of the greatest mistakes in the world that we've made has been in thinking, lumping—thinking "Latin America." You don't talk that way about Europe. You recognize the difference between various countries. And the same thing is true here.

So, I went down to say to them what my dream was about this accord and then say, "Now, how can we make it work?"

Q. Were they surprised at that attitude?
Did they think that was a change in attitude?

The President. I think so. No one actually specifically said it, but I think they did."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/...
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31449 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
It was just a funny typo then.
<quoted text>
I was just trying to show you that most complicated statements don't "stand alone" --- context is very important. The quote I gave you came from Ronald Reagan. Within context, I think Reagan comes off pretty well.
"Q. Has this trip changed your views any about Latin America and your policies? Do you see any perspectives differently after this trip?
The President. Well, I learned a lot, because that's what I went to do, is—I didn't go down there with any plan for the Americas or anything. I went down to find out from them and their views. And you'd be surprised, yes, because, you know, they're all individual countries. I think one of the greatest mistakes in the world that we've made has been in thinking, lumping—thinking "Latin America." You don't talk that way about Europe. You recognize the difference between various countries. And the same thing is true here.
So, I went down to say to them what my dream was about this accord and then say, "Now, how can we make it work?"
Q. Were they surprised at that attitude?
Did they think that was a change in attitude?
The President. I think so. No one actually specifically said it, but I think they did."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/...
I respect your sample example question. And admit that most out of context quotes are F'd up. But some, although a small number, still stand alone. Nancy's is one of the small number. And even IF not, this bill was still NOT on the web for a period of time stated by Obama for feedback. Obviously from her statement, even Pelosi didn't have/take time to review the bill or she wouldn't have made the statement that she did make.
I may be paraphrasing but not inaccurately,...vote for it to find out what is in it.
I still stand by my claim that the Dems pushed this through before the House numbers changed.
I also stand by my claim that the insurance changes could have been legislated on the insurance companies without being taken over by the Feds.
They (D.C.) can't properly operate the SS funds, the postal service, the highway funds, the VA funding & operation, & so much more that I am admittedly a 5 star skeptic of anything that the government controls.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31450 Jul 14, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> I respect your sample example question. And admit that most out of context quotes are F'd up. But some, although a small number, still stand alone. Nancy's is one of the small number.
Pops, Pelosi's enemies have been twisting that quote for a long time. Here's how it was initially reported at the time:

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington.“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”"

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Pelosi...

Note that she says "we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it" --- she is telling the audience that THEY will find out truth about the Bill once it was passed. The person who wrote this article understood that, as is clear from the first sentence.
truth amanda keppler

Ormond Beach, FL

#31451 Jul 14, 2014
is amanda keppler out of jail does any one know have they got her for selling her food stamps for pills and stealing that old womans rings in jackson
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31452 Jul 14, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are the times we live in. Everything is reduced to little nuggets of information/entertainment because it's hard to hold most people's attention for very long.
<quoted text>
Yes, you are right about that. I've always been a fast reader and I can easily get lost in a good book. But I know that's not typical these days.
<quoted text>
They are a lot like his early radio show. I read them back in the 90s. I never thought that he would become the influential person he is now. I remembering thinking back at the time that he was just a chubby "Joe Pyne" clone. He didn't seem to be very deep, but he certainly struck a chord with Republicans back then. He's had an amazingly run since then.
Since he first came to Cleveland, I knew he was going to be a huge success.

I didn't who Limbaugh was at the time until my then brother-in-law mentioned him. We were at a family gathering discussing politics as usual. My brother-in-law was listening on as he was helping my sister bring out dinner, and he said to me "You must be a Limbaugh fan" and laughed.

I had no idea WTF he was even talking about. Then some time passed by and I was pizzed off at something the Democrats did, and decided to turn this Limbaugh guy on and see what my brother-in-law was talking about. It was a big switch for me going from FM to AM. I haven't turned him off since.

For me, it was like listening to myself on the radio. It took me a while to catch on as it would for any first time listener, but after the first two or three weeks, I was addicted. When Limbaugh first came to the Cleveland airwaves, he was more conservative and radical than he is today. He mellowed out some.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31453 Jul 14, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Sry OG, I was not making a joke. If one includes Pelosi's preamble & post words to her statement, in this case it I don't see that it makes any difference. I was simply being brief & I don't think too brief.
Your 'example' question is an apple/oranges comparison since Pelosi was not answering questions & was basically giving a speech without overt pressure.
But I will say that in your example question, it would appear that the respondent was being evasive or not understanding of the question or wanting to qualify the question or the answer.
But again, Nancy was not answering questions. She was speaking her own words & thoughts without interference. As I see it, one of her few candid moments.
Pops, you still haven't compared the words Pelosi actually said with what you think she said have you? Why not? Are you afraid to find out that she didn't say what you seem to think she said?

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Walmart, Big Pharma, and Private Prisons 2 hr Ask Them 1
Jeff Sessions 2 hr 404 not found 8
TESLA: Electric Truckerland 🚛 2 hr 404 not found 17
The DemocRats "Watergate" 3 hr Escondido 713
News 2 dead, 1 critical in NE Side shooting 5 hr Escondido 4
Leeann Tweeden v. Al Franken 5 hr Minnesota miserable 162
Schumer is Going Down Too 7 hr 404 not found 2

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages