RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat

RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 5:09:13 PM)
quote: this explains it No, it doesn't. It's also an op-ed piece labeled "article." The cogent part of the "article" is about consumer choice. But then, if consumers wanted different choices, what's stopping existing companies from offering that? Or new competing companies? The only difference is state mandates. The proposal is to circumvent those regulations. Any state that believes this is a problem can simply drop the regulations. Yet they don't. It's like the complaints about Medicare/Medicaid. A state can opt out. Yet they don't, because they'd have to deal with the problem on their own (and without federal dollars).

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 5:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: this explains it No, it doesn't. It's also an op-ed piece labeled "article." The cogent part of the "article" is about consumer choice. But then, if consumers wanted different choices, what's stopping existing companies from offering that? Or new competing companies? The only difference is state mandates. The proposal is to circumvent those regulations. Any state that believes this is a problem can simply drop the regulations. Yet they don't. It's like the complaints about Medicare/Medicaid. A state can opt out. Yet they don't, because they'd have to deal with the problem on their own (and without federal dollars). It explains the mechanism of how competition is created.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 5:49:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Heretic, that's true. I saw a show about Rutan and he is a true genious! I thought they said that he didn't even graduate high school to boot. Burt Rutan Born in Estacada, Oregon, 30 miles southeast of Portland, and raised in Dinuba, California, Rutan displayed an early interest in aircraft design. By the time he was eight years old he was designing and building model aircraft. His first solo flight piloting an airplane was in an Aeronca Champ in 1959, when he was sixteen. In 1965 he graduated third in his class from the California Polytechnic State University with a BS degree in aeronautical engineering.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 6:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So I take it that no you can't point out the law passed after 1981 that made getting a tail number for an experimental aircraft easier. Why not just say so rather than continue trying to avoid the subject. Your stream of bullshit knows no bounds, does it, Ken? Let's recap then, shall we? I cited an authority of impeccable credentials, saying something that doesn't fit into your tiny little template of acceptable ideas. You responded by saying he was wrong, and added a link to something utterly unrelated. I exposed your ploy. You are now making utterly irrelevant demands on me, in what I can only see as a pathetically deperate attempt to hide your own gullibility behind a mask of arrogance. The burden of proof (maybe you should research that a little, because this isn't the first time I'm seen you use this pussy tactic) is on you. If you wish to challenge Burt Rutan's statement, thanking President Reagan for a climate and policies that made the Voyager flight a possibility, you go right ahead and do that. It's going to take a better source than what somebody told you "this one time" at an airshow. In fact, since what I'm inclined to think was meant by Rutan's statement was, thanks for a business and tax environment where a company that built toys for the rich could make enough money to do this too, you're going to have to meet a pretty high standard. Have a great night, Ken

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 6:57:29 PM)
Never mind. RML already answered.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 7:00:24 PM)
Well, actually, if you're talking about the quoted statement, the burden of proof would be on you, as the person making the affirmative claim. But it doesn't matter, because the two of you are discussing different points, as your very next sentence shows. None of this is any more than a tangental observation to the original point about airline regulation.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 8:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, actually, if you're talking about the quoted statement, the burden of proof would be on you, as the person making the affirmative claim. If there is a question about the validity of the quote, yes. That is not in dispute. (Though now that you gave hime the idea... dammit, Tim!) Rather, Ken is trying to equate his own opinion as being sufficient to counter, apparently based on the fact that he has "Dom" in his screen nic.

DomKen -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 9:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So I take it that no you can't point out the law passed after 1981 that made getting a tail number for an experimental aircraft easier. Why not just say so rather than continue trying to avoid the subject. Your stream of bullshit knows no bounds, does it, Ken? Let's recap then, shall we? I cited an authority of impeccable credentials, saying something that doesn't fit into your tiny little template of acceptable ideas. You responded by saying he was wrong, and added a link to something utterly unrelated. I exposed your ploy. You are now making utterly irrelevant demands on me, in what I can only see as a pathetically deperate attempt to hide your own gullibility behind a mask of arrogance. The burden of proof (maybe you should research that a little, because this isn't the first time I'm seen you use this pussy tactic) is on you. If you wish to challenge Burt Rutan's statement, thanking President Reagan for a climate and policies that made the Voyager flight a possibility, you go right ahead and do that. It's going to take a better source than what somebody told you "this one time" at an airshow. In fact, since what I'm inclined to think was meant by Rutan's statement was, thanks for a business and tax environment where a company that built toys for the rich could make enough money to do this too, you're going to have to meet a pretty high standard. Have a great night, Ken Actually your claim is: quote: Sure, Muse. It isn't like deregulation freed innovators from the crush of onerous legislation or anything... It was completely baa-aaad. One shining example Perhaps nuance is only for ideas you like? and quote: I want to thank Ronald Reagan for providing and maintaining this environment that was devoid of governtment regulations... I only filled out two pieces of paper for the US government I then pointed out that there was no deregulation and that it had always been easy to get approval to fly experimental aircraft in the US. You claim that is untrue and that Reagan changed some regulation. I demanded that you prove your claim. You haven't and now you're trying to avoid the problem by redefining what you're claiming. Not going to work. What law, passed post 1981, made it easier for Rutan to get a tail number for the Voyager? You made the affirmative claim and I'm simply asking for proof.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 9:39:00 PM)
Is that supposed to be your command tone, Ken? It sounds awfully shrill. Who says there was any such specific law passed in such specific year? Where do you come up with this crap? I didn't say that. Rutan didn't say that. The source I cited referenced an "environment." Challenge the source or STFU. One or the other, bitch. Do it now.

DomKen -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 10:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Is that supposed to be your command tone, Ken? It sounds awfully shrill. Who says there was any such specific law passed in such specific year? Where do you come up with this crap? I didn't say that. Rutan didn't say that. The source I cited referenced an "environment." Challenge the source or STFU. One or the other, bitch. Do it now. I quoted what you said. You claimed deregulation allowed it and quoted a guy saying Reagan "provided" an environment. The only way that those two statements are related is if the environment "provided" was one involving deregulation. Since Reagan was only POTUS post 1981 I still await what law was passed in or after 1981 that made it easier for Rutan to license Voyager, plane that was under design in 1980. It's real simple you made the claim. You have to prove it. You've been told by two different people that you were wrong but you continue to claim otherwise so prove it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/1/2010 11:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quoted a guy saying ... Nope. I quoted the top guy in the field. You ain't him. G'night.

DomKen -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 12:42:47 AM)
So try this, Rutan specifically mentions filling out two pieces of paper to get Voyager licensed. I say that those two applications were an airworthiness certificate and a tail number (FAA N number) application, the same and only applications needed since 1947 when experimental aircraft were legalized. You claim something was changed by Reagan so tell me what other application he would have had to fill out prior to Reagan.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 6:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So try this, Rutan specifically mentions filling out two pieces of paper to get Voyager licensed. I say that those two applications were an airworthiness certificate and a tail number (FAA N number) application, the same and only applications needed since 1947 when experimental aircraft were legalized. You claim something was changed by Reagan so tell me what other application he would have had to fill out prior to Reagan. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 7:06:09 AM)
As usual Jon Stewart has a wonderful take on the actual tv event where Obama bitchslapped the repubs http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/headlines/#clip262457 wonder why its been so ignored when it was the best thing on TV in years. So much deflection its astonishing, or it should be.[8\|] HAH

mnottertail -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 7:39:54 AM)
advert played ok, but that is a canucks only video of stewart. Ron

DomKen -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 8:16:32 AM)
This should play for those in the US at least: http://www.hulu.com/watch/125235/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mon-feb-1-2010

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 9:53:38 AM)
oooops my bad Thanks Ken

philosophy -> RE: Obama at the House GOP retreat (2/2/2010 12:55:57 PM)
FR ....i saw a clip of one of the Republicans attempting to scold Obama for increasing the deficit. This Republican stated that the annual deficit under the previous administration was now the monthly deficit under Obama.....an increase, clearly of 1200%. He then, in the very next sentence, said the deficit had increased by 30%. Now, my point is.....if Republicans have so little respect for people that they'll just assume they can't do simple math, why should anyone trust a damn word they say?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875