Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Feb 8, 2015 10:57 AM
Of course....anticipation. I would suggest it gets better and better as 2016 approaches.
Feb 8, 2015 10:57am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 8, 2015 11:41 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1704060 wrote:This guy should grab an aluminum foil hat while he's at it. He's now claiming that he fears for his safety for saying this.

Flaws in the official unemployment rate are there.

Then maybe we should be focusing on the employment rate instead:

Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

Of course, that would not fit the administration/media narrative.
Feb 8, 2015 11:41am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 8, 2015 12:30 PM
QuakerOats;1704140 wrote:Then maybe we should be focusing on the employment rate instead:

Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

Of course, that would not fit the administration/media narrative.
If your friend at Gallup is to be believed, then every administration since the beginning of time touts a "big lie" of a number.

Almost every large sector of our economy is chugging along quite nicely. This in spite of lethargy in Europe and Asia. It is a healthy time in the US - and we should all be happy about that.
Feb 8, 2015 12:30pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 8, 2015 3:24 PM
QuakerOats;1704136 wrote:"This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time." No shit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html






http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01/10/meteorologist-anthony-watts-on-adjusted-us-temperature-data-in-the-business-and-trading-world-people-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/
Feb 8, 2015 3:24pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 8, 2015 3:52 PM
in the "Repubs are obstructionist just keeping Harry Reid from doing his job" department.....Repub-led Senate has already held more VOTES on amendments than ALL of 2014.
Feb 8, 2015 3:52pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 8, 2015 4:25 PM
Here's some advice you can take or leave...

When you make your arguments on here, dig a little deeper than linking the predictable right wing websites. It would make your points more potent. There are things you say that I sometimes agree with. But all you do is copy the same links that exist at all of the right wing, conspiracy theory sites.
Feb 8, 2015 4:25pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 8, 2015 7:26 PM
Sort of related, but Bill Maher last night is talking about how wrong pharma/medicine have been over the years...then proceeds to say "it's not like climate science, where they've mostly been right, but the human body is just so much more complex than the climate...and the climate science is just more verifiable and concrete"

Even for Bill Maher, that's an astounding amount of fiction/misinformation/general ignorance in a few short statements. This from the same guy who's often jokes "first we were entering another ice age, then we were warming...now it's just climate change"
Feb 8, 2015 7:26pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 9, 2015 10:54 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1704187 wrote:Here's some advice you can take or leave...

When you make your arguments on here, dig a little deeper than linking the predictable right wing websites. It would make your points more potent. There are things you say that I sometimes agree with. But all you do is copy the same links that exist at all of the right wing, conspiracy theory sites.

Perhaps you should think a little deeper. Certain people and groups are making a living out of manipulating data to suit their narrative and that of other radical groups, and others are making quite a play for power by using manipulated data. The astonishing manipulation, and total disregard for the millions of years of 'climate change' predating our existence, is becoming laughable.

Good luck.
Feb 9, 2015 10:54am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Feb 9, 2015 11:25 AM
QuakerOats;1704409 wrote:Perhaps you should think a little deeper. Certain people and groups are making a living out of manipulating data to suit their narrative and that of other radical groups, and others are making quite a play for power by using manipulated data. The astonishing manipulation, and total disregard for the millions of years of 'climate change' predating our existence, is becoming laughable.

Good luck.
Yes, we know. I think that's why he said to dig a little deeper than your right wing, conspiracy theory sites.
Feb 9, 2015 11:25am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 9, 2015 5:18 PM
Heretic;1704420 wrote:Yes, we know. I think that's why he said to dig a little deeper than your right wing, conspiracy theory sites.
Correct.
Feb 9, 2015 5:18pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 10, 2015 10:36 AM
Heretic;1704420 wrote:Yes, we know. I think that's why he said to dig a little deeper than your right wing, conspiracy theory sites.

You mean like ABC, NBC, and CBS. Too funny.
Feb 10, 2015 10:36am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Feb 10, 2015 1:27 PM
^^^well that's it in a nutshell..... MSDNC and CNN are sooooo objective. :D The other 3 only slightly better. You better watch out for those right wing conspiracy theory websites...and get your information from an "objective source".
Feb 10, 2015 1:27pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 10, 2015 3:03 PM
QuakerOats;1704654 wrote:You mean like ABC, NBC, and CBS. Too funny.
The point is you site the same sites over and over as news sources that are in reality platforms for right wing radicals. That's too funny
Feb 10, 2015 3:03pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 10, 2015 8:41 PM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1704768 wrote:The point is you site the same sites over and over as news sources that are in reality platforms for right wing radicals. That's too funny
Yeah, we get it. If you're not a liberal, you're a right-wing radical. At least that's the meme the "mainstream" media keeps pushing in order to discredit opposing points of view.
Feb 10, 2015 8:41pm
R

rydawg5

Senior Member

2,639 posts
Feb 10, 2015 8:53 PM
I do have a question about ISIS (not sure if this is the right forum)

A year ago, we were really trying to get troops into Syria because of Chemical Attacks on its people.

The problem was that Al Qaeda (or rogue radicals) was also against them and people seemed to be against us seemingly "joining" bad guys to fight bad guys.


Just seems like we are REALLY trying to get into Syria. Was it a completely different set of enemies and players last year or is it all intertwined? Was it ISIS/Al Qaeda last year that we were trying to team up with or some faction?

Or were we not teaming up with anyone just arming bad people to fight bad people.
Feb 10, 2015 8:53pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 11, 2015 12:09 AM
rydawg5;1704876 wrote:I do have a question about ISIS (not sure if this is the right forum)

A year ago, we were really trying to get troops into Syria because of Chemical Attacks on its people.
Putting troops in Syria was never in question. Air strikes against the official Syrian government were what was in consideration at that time. Russian intervention (they have major interest to preserve their naval base in Syria) and a deal for the Syrian government to turn over its chemical weapons thwarted Western governments will to conduct airstrikes. Balls were snipped. A murky deal that was nearly impossible to verify amid the chaos of an active civil war. Basically the Syrian government was left to "declare" and turn over their chemical weapons arsenal. They had to turn over a part of it but everyone with a brain knows they did not turn over all of it.
rydawg5;1704876 wrote:The problem was that Al Qaeda (or rogue radicals) was also against them and people seemed to be against us seemingly "joining" bad guys to fight bad guys.

Just seems like we are REALLY trying to get into Syria. Was it a completely different set of enemies and players last year or is it all intertwined? Was it ISIS/Al Qaeda last year that we were trying to team up with or some faction?

Or were we not teaming up with anyone just arming bad people to fight bad people.
The Syrian civil war is a mess. You have a moderate totalitarian government, moderate rebel forces in combat with it, Islamic radicals joining them to over through the government, and then IS. IS pulled support from the radical elements when they were able to secure ground in Syria and Iraq. Allegiances change as they loose ground. Arming the potential bad elements would not be a good thing that is why many are against it. Arming good elements in this fight (like the Kurds) carry political problems as they would agitate the Turks and the Iraqi government who have had historical conflicts with them.

All that said the Islamic State arose in all this shitty mess and is such an evil entity that it can not be permitted to exist on this earth. It must be wiped out. Its to the point where President Obama is going to ask Congress for war powers to deal with it. If we are going to deal with this evil we must not go in with tied hands.
Feb 11, 2015 12:09am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 11, 2015 6:15 AM
gut;1704875 wrote:Yeah, we get it. If you're not a liberal, you're a right-wing radical. At least that's the meme the "mainstream" media keeps pushing in order to discredit opposing points of view.

I don't think that at all. I was borrowing a word conservatives throw around regularly.
Feb 11, 2015 6:15am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 11, 2015 9:46 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1704768 wrote:The point is you site the same sites over and over as news sources that are in reality platforms for right wing radicals. That's too funny

No; the point is data is being manipulated to empower a marxist agenda.

You should search for the facts as opposed to damning the messenger(s).
Feb 11, 2015 9:46am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Feb 11, 2015 10:49 AM
QuakerOats;1704983 wrote:No; the point is data is being manipulated to empower a marxist agenda.

You should search for the facts as opposed to damning the messenger(s).
True. It's always better to read data manipulated to empower one's own agenda, instead of that manipulated to empower another.
Feb 11, 2015 10:49am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 11, 2015 11:44 AM
QuakerOats;1704983 wrote:No; the point is data is being manipulated to empower a marxist agenda.

You should search for the facts as opposed to damning the messenger(s).
You see a world wide conspiracy I guess and that's that.
Feb 11, 2015 11:44am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Feb 12, 2015 7:14 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1705018 wrote:You see a world wide conspiracy I guess and that's that.
question would you support term limits for all levels of government from local, state and federal voted positions?
Feb 12, 2015 7:14am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Feb 12, 2015 1:39 PM
Belly35;1705216 wrote:question would you support term limits for all levels of government from local, state and federal voted positions?
As a matter of fact I do support term limits. I think President should be six years with no re-election, Senate and House four years with no re-election.
Feb 12, 2015 1:39pm
R

rydawg5

Senior Member

2,639 posts
Feb 12, 2015 9:55 PM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1705306 wrote:As a matter of fact I do support term limits. I think President should be six years with no re-election, Senate and House four years with no re-election.
You shouldn't deviate from the corner he is trying to pin you in. We are keeping this purely Pepsi or Coke, sir.
Feb 12, 2015 9:55pm