da evilz is back...

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
I know the author and source will immediately be attacked by those who don't wish to discuss the information contained within the article. For the rest of you, I would suggest reading this as it contains valid points that should be discussed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473372635087870.html


"One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits."
 
If you're willing to take that guys word on anything you need to have your head examined. Given that you probably just read the thing off of Real Clear Politics, you have no idea whether the shit Karl is peddling is true or not. Claiming that he makes "valid points" is laughable.

My favorite part is this:

Democrats who support any final bill are at risk. They'll be held responsible for the mess that quickly emerges as premiums rise, taxes balloon, deficits soar, mandates expand, and government power grows.

That's hilarious. Think about it for a minute. If that were true, you wouldn't have unified Republican opposition to the bill. The Republicans would more than happily step aside that let the Democratic lemmings vote for the bill, lose their majority allowing the Republicans to take back Congress.

Turd Blossom is full of shit, knows the bill is close to passing and is desperately trying to prevent it from happening because he knows that an Obama victory here would be devastating to the Republican minority. With that in mind, anyone who believes Karl's view of the bill is seriously deluded.
 
That's hilarious. Think about it for a minute. If that were true, you wouldn't have unified Republican opposition to the bill. The Republicans would more than happily step aside that let the Democratic lemmings vote for the bill, lose their majority allowing the Republicans to take back Congress.

that would be totally moronic to step aside and let that happen. If they did that, they couldn't effectively use 'we tried to stop it' to their enraptured constituency for the next election cycle.
 
If you're willing to take that guys word on anything you need to have your head examined. Given that you probably just read the thing off of Real Clear Politics, you have no idea whether the shit Karl is peddling is true or not. Claiming that he makes "valid points" is laughable.

My favorite part is this:



That's hilarious. Think about it for a minute. If that were true, you wouldn't have unified Republican opposition to the bill. The Republicans would more than happily step aside that let the Democratic lemmings vote for the bill, lose their majority allowing the Republicans to take back Congress.

Turd Blossom is full of shit, knows the bill is close to passing and is desperately trying to prevent it from happening because he knows that an Obama victory here would be devastating to the Republican minority. With that in mind, anyone who believes Karl's view of the bill is seriously deluded.

As I stated, there are those who will simply attack the source or the author... thank you for proving my point.

As for your statement that there wouldn't be Republican opposition, you are seriously out of your mind. Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it. Just look at Social Security. Every time someone proposes changing it to prevent it from imploding, the Dems start harping on 'da Republicans wantz to steal your social security money' and nothing gets done to fix a problem that we all know is looming ever closer.

But again... I never expected you to actually discuss... I knew people like you would attack the source rather than debate the actual issue.
 
As I stated, there are those who will simply attack the source or the author... thank you for proving my point.

As for your statement that there wouldn't be Republican opposition, you are seriously out of your mind. Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it. Just look at Social Security. Every time someone proposes changing it to prevent it from imploding, the Dems start harping on 'da Republicans wantz to steal your social security money' and nothing gets done to fix a problem that we all know is looming ever closer.

But again... I never expected you to actually discuss... I knew people like you would attack the source rather than debate the actual issue.



You're prescient. It's amazing. You're like a modern Nostradamus.

I mean, why on earth would anyone dispute the veracity of Karl "the math" Rove? It's not like he's a total fucking hack or anything who would do or say pretty much anything to help out Republicans and defeat Democrats. I mean, his track-record as an honest broker is beyond reproach.
 
You're prescient. It's amazing. You're like a modern Nostradamus.

I mean, why on earth would anyone dispute the veracity of Karl "the math" Rove? It's not like he's a total fucking hack or anything who would do or say pretty much anything to help out Republicans and defeat Democrats. I mean, his track-record as an honest broker is beyond reproach.

Like I said, you attack the author rather than discuss the point...

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Is that wrong? Yes or no?

Side note... don't ever post anything that comes from Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, or for that matter any politician again. Oh, and you can leave out the huffington post, moveon.moron, the NY Times, the LA Times etc... as well.

Because there is no way anything any of them state can be valid given their past history.
 
As for your statement that there wouldn't be Republican opposition, you are seriously out of your mind. Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it. Just look at Social Security. Every time someone proposes changing it to prevent it from imploding, the Dems start harping on 'da Republicans wantz to steal your social security money' and nothing gets done to fix a problem that we all know is looming ever closer.

This assumes the Republicans care about solving problems over getting reelected. I think sty's argument is better. It would be hard for Repubs to use the reform's failure against Dems if the Repubs don't oppose it.
 
Like I said, you attack the author rather than discuss the point...

""One trick is easily explained. The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits.""

Is that wrong? Yes or no?

Side note... don't ever post anything that comes from Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, or for that matter any politician again. Oh, and you can leave out the huffington post, moveon.moron, the NY Times, the LA Times etc... as well.

Because there is no way anything any of them state can be valid given their past history.



Yes, it is wrong.

And I'm not inclined to address the rest of your post. I'll chalk it up to a bad morning.
 
As I stated, there are those who will simply attack the source or the author... thank you for proving my point.

As for your statement that there wouldn't be Republican opposition, you are seriously out of your mind. Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it. Just look at Social Security. Every time someone proposes changing it to prevent it from imploding, the Dems start harping on 'da Republicans wantz to steal your social security money' and nothing gets done to fix a problem that we all know is looming ever closer.

But again... I never expected you to actually discuss... I knew people like you would attack the source rather than debate the actual issue.

Despite Karl Rove being the author of this piece and another "piece" such as The Turd demonstrates, it wouldn't matter if it came notorized and tatooed to his fanny. He still wouldn't believe it.

So Rove made up the statement below?

"Under questioning at a Senate hearing Tuesday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes in the Baucus bill would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums. That undercuts the argument that Democratic reforms will make health care more affordable".
 
care to explain why it is wrong?


First of all, the fact that Karl Rove provides no source for his contention should be the first indication that he is hiding something. Do you know Karl's source? Second, the obvious weasel words "really doesn't start" and "fully operational" are dead giveaways that Karl is pulling the wool over your eyes. It's 100% transparent if you bother to look.

A cursory review of the CBO review of the Baucus bill relating to revenues and outlays reveals that Turd Blossom isn't shooting straight here.
 
As I stated, there are those who will simply attack the source or the author... thank you for proving my point.

As for your statement that there wouldn't be Republican opposition, you are seriously out of your mind. Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it. Just look at Social Security. Every time someone proposes changing it to prevent it from imploding, the Dems start harping on 'da Republicans wantz to steal your social security money' and nothing gets done to fix a problem that we all know is looming ever closer.

But again... I never expected you to actually discuss... I knew people like you would attack the source rather than debate the actual issue.

The reason changes are not made is because the changes offered are disasters. The SS change proposed earlier was to privatize it. In other words scrap it.

SS came about because people didn't save. When they got older they had nothing to live on. Today, people not only save less but go into debt.This is the worst time to mess with SS.

As for the medical bill you wrote, "Once a piece of legislation like this were passed it would be nearly impossible to make changes to it or eliminate it," the reason is people wouldn't want it changed or eliminated.

We hear the same nonsense from a minority of people in countries that have universal medical plans. Every year it's the same thing. "We don't have the money." They've been saying that for 50 years! All the while every citizen has enjoyed medical coverage.

The first thing one has to understand is the government has the money. The people who claim the government does not have the money are people who want the money the government does have to be used for something else. That's all it is.

Logic and common sense dictate the wealthiest country on the face of the earth has enough resources to look after it's ill citizens. To say or imply or suggest or allude to the possibility it does not is sheer craziness. The proof is dozens of other countries have succeeded in doing so and, yes, the citizens of those countries scream loud and clear if a politician even suggests touching their medical plans.

It's not a matter of not being able to change them. The reality is people don't want their medical plans changed and that's the Repub nightmare. They know that once the US starts down the road towards a universal plan there is no stopping it because the people won't want it stopped just like the people in every other country that has a universal plan don't want it changed.

Not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one country. Hundreds of millions of people. Dozens of nationalities. Different languages. Different religions. Different colors. Widely varying economic conditions. Not one country reverted to the "pay or suffer" system.

Helloooooooooooooooo.
 
Last edited:
Despite Karl Rove being the author of this piece and another "piece" such as The Turd demonstrates, it wouldn't matter if it came notorized and tatooed to his fanny. He still wouldn't believe it.

So Rove made up the statement below?

"Under questioning at a Senate hearing Tuesday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes in the Baucus bill would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums. That undercuts the argument that Democratic reforms will make health care more affordable".


Actually, yes. Yes, he did. Elmendorf actually testified that the CBO has not done an analysis of the impact of the bill on health insurance premiums. Once again, the lack of a direct quote should tip you off that Karl isn't shooting straight here. This is not difficult stuff.
 
If you're willing to take that guys word on anything you need to have your head examined. Given that you probably just read the thing off of Real Clear Politics, you have no idea whether the shit Karl is peddling is true or not. Claiming that he makes "valid points" is laughable.

My favorite part is this:



That's hilarious. Think about it for a minute. If that were true, you wouldn't have unified Republican opposition to the bill. The Republicans would more than happily step aside that let the Democratic lemmings vote for the bill, lose their majority allowing the Republicans to take back Congress.

Turd Blossom is full of shit, knows the bill is close to passing and is desperately trying to prevent it from happening because he knows that an Obama victory here would be devastating to the Republican minority. With that in mind, anyone who believes Karl's view of the bill is seriously deluded.
Not really. Republicans know that nothing is more eternal than a government program.
 
Actually, yes. Yes, he did. Elmendorf actually testified that the CBO has not done an analysis of the impact of the bill on health insurance premiums. Once again, the lack of a direct quote should tip you off that Karl isn't shooting straight here. This is not difficult stuff.

Do not ever post anything that doesn't have a direct quote in the future. Otherwise we will simply pretend that makes whatever you are stating false.

None of those pieces with 'anonymous' sources either.
 
Do not ever post anything that doesn't have a direct quote in the future. Otherwise we will simply pretend that makes whatever you are stating false.

None of those pieces with 'anonymous' sources either.


You're touchy today. You post an op-ed by Turd Blossom and get upset when I point out that he's full of shit. I'm not sure what your story is. Do you have any evidence to substantiate the "valid points" you claim Turd Blossom raises in the op-ed or are you just going to throw a temper tantrum because your boy lied to you and you took it hook, line and sinker?


Edit: And here's thing, it doesn't take more than a few second to figure out if what Rove says is true. Try it sometime. You're old enough to know that just because someone says something doesn't make it so and you should have a more highly developed bullshit detector than you apparently do.
 
You're touchy today. You post an op-ed by Turd Blossom and get upset when I point out that he's full of shit. I'm not sure what your story is. Do you have any evidence to substantiate the "valid points" you claim Turd Blossom raises in the op-ed or are you just going to throw a temper tantrum because your boy lied to you and you took it hook, line and sinker?
You didn't point out he was full of anything, you simply pointed out that he didn't cite his sources. That isn't even close to the same thing. Somebody can be right as rain, but not cite sources.
 
You didn't point out he was full of anything, you simply pointed out that he didn't cite his sources. That isn't even close to the same thing. Somebody can be right as rain, but not cite sources.


No, he's full of shit. The onus isn't on me to prove him wrong. Let your buddy prove his case that Karl Rove raises "valid points." Show me something that supports the "valid points" that Rove allegedly makes in his op-ed.
 
You're touchy today. You post an op-ed by Turd Blossom and get upset when I point out that he's full of shit. I'm not sure what your story is. Do you have any evidence to substantiate the "valid points" you claim Turd Blossom raises in the op-ed or are you just going to throw a temper tantrum because your boy lied to you and you took it hook, line and sinker?


Edit: And here's thing, it doesn't take more than a few second to figure out if what Rove says is true. Try it sometime. You're old enough to know that just because someone says something doesn't make it so and you should have a more highly developed bullshit detector than you apparently do.

No moron... I stated in my original post that I knew some of you idiots would immediately attack the author rather than discuss the points made. Which is exactly what you did. I am simply stating that you should not expect anything more than that on any article or piece you post.

If it is so easy for you to prove the point I highlighted is false... then please do provide us with a link rather than your simple bullshit of 'he didn't post a direct quote' crap.
 
You didn't point out he was full of anything, you simply pointed out that he didn't cite his sources. That isn't even close to the same thing. Somebody can be right as rain, but not cite sources.

he isn't interested in doing that. He simply wants to shout...

Rove is da evilz... blah blah blah...

He claims it only takes a few seconds to disprove the points, but then refuses to do so....

My bullshit detector is indeed going off....
 
Back
Top