The American Way.

[LV426]

The annexation of the Crimea was bloodless and peaceful and the choice of the people by referendum.

Umm...no, it wasn't.

That differs from all of the US wars of aggression

Again with the whatabouting. Intimidation by showing military force is violent even if no blood is spilled. Just like attacking our elections is an act of war, even though no one was murdered. There doesn't have to be blood for their to be violence and intimidation.

My invitation to a decent and rational discussion is always open. I won't entertain you repeating yourself on denial of the facts.

It doesn't seem like you want to have a rational discussion. It seems that you're acting as an apologist for Putin.

 

[cawacko]

I told you that it's incumbent on you to do the work here.

You've resisted doing that work because these Op-Eds confirm your bias.

You're unable to overcome your bias and think critically because you're lazy.

In all this time, you could have gotten yourself a better grasp of this so you can speak to the context. But you aren't and the reason you're not is because you're lazy.

So once again, you lob something out there that you cannot defend, then try to defer in an appeal to authority while exhibiting lazy behavior.

If I was making an argument about pension liabilities, I'd want to be able to speak to the math. I'd want to be able to say "Here is the expenditure, here is the revenue baseline, and here's the period I'm looking across". You didn't establish any of those things, and neither did any of the links you posted.

You simply disseminated propaganda that confirmed your bias.

So fucking lazy.

Nope. You are the one who has the issue, you show us how the people are wrong. Pretty simple.

 

[LV426]

One officer was killed and another wounded, it was not bloodless.

Not to mention the tens of thousands of protesters from both sides throughout February and March of 2014. Not peaceful at all. In fact, Putin lent support to the Night Wolves biker group which was basically a Russian paramilitary force that intimidated Crimeans and Ukranians.

 

[LV426]

Link to that quote if you can. I don't believe it. It can only be a mistranslation at best. Or something from history during the Soviet era when the US was making the same cold war statements.

I did link to the quote.

You literally responded to it.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Umm...no, it wasn't.




Again with the whatabouting. Intimidation by showing military force is violent even if no blood is spilled. Just like attacking our elections is an act of war, even though no one was murdered. There doesn't have to be blood for their to be violence and intimidation.




It doesn't seem like you want to have a rational discussion. It seems that you're acting as an apologist for Putin.

Again with the whatabouting. Intimidation by showing military force is violent even if no blood is spilled. Just like attacking our elections is an act of war, even though no one was murdered. There doesn't have to be blood for their to be violence and intimidation.

Who has over 1000 military bases and installations all across the globe with 7 generational hot shooting wars ongoing? Please review the history of american military interventionism.

 

[LV426]

I don't believe it.

And this is the problem. You're letting your beliefs cloud your judgment. Not sure why, either. Putin's not a good guy. He's ex-KGB. He kills journalists. He poisons his enemies on foreign soil. He attacks our elections and literally said his goal is to destroy western liberalism and democracy.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

And this is the problem. You're letting your beliefs cloud your judgment. Not sure why, either. Putin's not a good guy. He's ex-KGB. He kills journalists. He poisons his enemies on foreign soil. He attacks our elections and literally said his goal is to destroy western liberalism and democracy.

How many countries are they occupying militarily? How many countries is the US occupying militarily?

 

[TTQ64]

Nope. You are the one who has the issue, you show us how the people are wrong. Pretty simple.

coward...….you want him to prove the bias article wrong you posted????

smh

 

[LV426]

Nope. You are the one who has the issue, you show us how the people are wrong. Pretty simple.

You're a lazy MFer.

You're literally saying you don't need to do the work to verify your argument. What a fucking lazy asshole.

 

[cawacko]

You're a lazy MFer.

You're literally saying you don't need to do the work to verify your argument. What a fucking lazy asshole.

No. You said it's wrong, show why. Pretty simple.

 

[TTQ64]

You're a lazy MFer.

You're literally saying you don't need to do the work to verify your argument. What a fucking lazy asshole.

He will lie and say it's not his argument, he didn't write the article.

He's a fuckin fraud.

 

[LV426]

Nope. You are the one who has the issue, you show us how the people are wrong. Pretty simple.

The issue I have is that you aren't providing context.

That's the fucking issue here.

The reason you don't provide the context is because the propaganda you're circulating is determining the liability by using revenue baselines from when CA was in a recession, ISN'T IT?

So your Op-Ed concern trolls paint a distorted view of the situation by underhandedly using a revenue baseline to determine this liability that is not reflective of the current economy. I contend you're using a revenue baseline from the bottom of the Great Bush Recession (that was caused by policies you supported and voted for) that paints a picture of a dire crisis because that's the most effective way to show a large liability; by using revenue baselines from when they were at their weakest thanks to your recession.

The liability picture changes as revenue increases, doesn't it? So if the economy starts doing better, then that increases revenues and thus, reduces the liability.

But we can't say for sure because A) you're not citing what your revenue baseline is and B) you're not saying how long of a period of time you're looking.

Prove me wrong by showing your work.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The problem actually is not wealth disparity. The problem is that some people simply do not have enough…and work too fucking hard to get not enough.

Anyway, there is NO CURE for wealth disparity for two major reasons:

One…it is not a problem. We can all live fine lives even with significant wealth disparity…providing everyone is leading a comfortable life...providing everyone has sufficient.

Two…there will never be a day in any country on planet Earth where some people will not have more than others. If every country on the planet became truly communistic tomorrow…by the day after tomorrow some will have more than others…and the day after that more will have more than others…and the more will be greater.

Dealing with wealth disparity the way we are is a bridge to nowhere.

The problem we should be dealing with is not “wealth disparity, but rather: How can we arrange for everyone to have sufficient so that the impact of wealth disparity becomes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more tolerable?

That is an easier problem to deal with...and it has the advantage of actually being a problem.

Dealing with that problem, folks, requires the elimination of the Protestant work-ethic…and its bastard child, the notion that everyone must “earn his/her living.”

 

[LV426]

He will lie and say it's not his argument, he didn't write the article.

He's a fuckin fraud.

That's exactly what he's doing. He's appealing to imagined authority because he's just disseminating propaganda. He can claim "don't shoot the messenger". Well, yeah, we can shoot the messenger, particularly if that messenger is in on the con.

 

[LV426]

No. You said it's wrong, show why. Pretty simple.

You haven't shown how you're right.

You refuse to do the work.

It's obvious why.

 

[cawacko]

The issue I have is that you aren't providing context.

That's the fucking issue here.

The reason you don't provide the context is because the propaganda you're circulating is determining the liability by using revenue baselines from when CA was in a recession, ISN'T IT?

So your Op-Ed concern trolls paint a distorted view of the situation by underhandedly using a revenue baseline to determine this liability that is not reflective of the current economy. I contend you're using a revenue baseline from the bottom of the Great Bush Recession (that was caused by policies you supported and voted for) that paints a picture of a dire crisis because that's the most effective way to show a large liability; by using revenue baselines from when they were at their weakest thanks to your recession.

The liability picture changes as revenue increases, doesn't it? So if the economy starts doing better, then that increases revenues and thus, reduces the liability.

But we can't say for sure because A) you're not citing what your revenue baseline is and B) you're not saying how long of a period of time you're looking.

Prove me wrong by showing your work.

You're contending these things without facts to back them up. You're trying to create a scenario in your mind to justify positions you hold with the economic facts. If that's what you believe is happening then show it with numbers.

 

[LV426]

You're contending these things without facts to back them up. You're trying to create a scenario in your mind to justify positions you hold with the economic facts. If that's what you believe is happening then show it with numbers.

Dude.

You're the one who is making the argument that there's a pension liability. When asked to show you work, you refuse.

So it would seem the person who is having a hard time with facts is you, and that's only because you got caught disseminating propaganda of which you did no due diligence.

 

[cawacko]

Dude.

You're the one who is making the argument that there's a pension liability. When asked to show you work, you refuse.

So it would seem the person who is having a hard time with facts is you, and that's only because you got caught disseminating propaganda of which you did no due diligence.

I guess we can have this circular conversation all day. You've been given the info from multiple sources. If you have a disagreement with it post your retort with the correct info. Again, not difficult.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I guess we can have this circular conversation all day. You've been given the info from multiple sources. If you have a disagreement with it post your retort with the correct info. Again, not difficult.

Ya know? This thread is a perfect study of the "american way".

 

[Lightbringer]

I guess we can have this circular conversation all day. You've been given the info from multiple sources. If you have a disagreement with it post your retort with the correct info. Again, not difficult.

In this thread? No, you're lying. I just went back through the thread you didn't post any links at all. And you gave no info.

I get it though, Rush hasn't posted it yet so you can't.

Fuck off community college dropout.