115th Congress defunds ACA: Senate: 51-48 House:227-198; Executive Order signed 1/20

[iamduval]

do they actually have a plan to replace obama care?

Yeah. The same plan just a new name.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Yep I started a thread and used facts to explain myself and scientific study to argue against your psuedo science takes, and you found your own argument lacking.
Its okay to say people disagree with you, but when you start name calling and trying to insult people when you can't reply, its pretty sad on a intellectual level, especially in Higher Learning where we are supposed to discuss at a grown up and intellectual level, and not dap fishing. Don't you think?

People called you stupid because it was a horrible thread and you are a horrible poster

Learn from your mistakes and K.I.M.

 

[David_TheMan]

People called you stupid because it was a horrible thread and you are a horrible poster

Learn from your mistakes and K.I.M.

Should be easy to prove a faulty idea wrong, when you settle for name calling though, you don't take a moral or intellectual high ground, nor do you actually prove your point.
That said, I'll post as I have done before and if you don't like it, you'll continue to name call and do what you usually do.

 

[hashmander]

In theory, I agree. In reality, Have we forgotten 2008 already?

an underrated aspect of how the obama years have gone is that we have forgotten how scary shyt was looking back then. now republicans have the wheel to themselves again.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yep I started a thread and used facts to explain myself and scientific study to argue against your psuedo science takes, and you found your own argument lacking.
Its okay to say people disagree with you, but when you start name calling and trying to insult people when you can't reply, its pretty sad on a intellectual level, especially in Higher Learning where we are supposed to discuss at a grown up and intellectual level, and not dap fishing. Don't you think?

What name did I call you that you object to?

You had absolutely no scientific study to show that Obamacare was leading to a drop in life expectancy. It was one of the most nonsensical claims I've seen on Higher Learning this year.

You DEFINITELY didn't have any scientific study to show that obesity is not a large factor in the drop in life expectancy. You had an old New York Post article by a pro-obesity activist citing "indeterminate" studies from 40+ years ago.

You also DEFINITELY didn't have any scientific study to show that fast food isn't bad for you.

Nor did you post anything that proved that "calories were calories".

And when I posted responses, especially from researchers who saw this life expectancy drop coming years ago and even showed foreboding drops in nearly every demographic BEFORE Obamacare which suggested an overall drop coming soon, you proved that you had no idea what I had just posted, and just dismissed it like you hadn't even understood what it meant.


Literally NOTHING that you posted in response to me was in response to things I actually argued.


Instead, what you responded with were these weird arguments that were off at weird angles to the points I was making. It was like you took what I said, remade it into something else to fit some pre-held category in your mind, and then posted some defense based on another point that you had already misunderstood. Without fail you were always half-wrong in understanding what argument I had even made, then your defense was half-wrong too on top of that even if you'd been responding to the argument you thought you had read! It was ridiculous to even try to dialogue with that.

I made my points, they still stand there in that thread, and they still have not been countered by you. Until you re-read the thread and try to actually understand what I said correctly, then reply to THAT accurately, it's useless to go on.

And I've seen you do it over and over in other threads too. You have all these ideas, God knows where you got them from, and you shoehorn every discussion to fit into some aspect of your ideas even if it's the wrong one. It's like where I was posting on Universal Basic Income and you confused it with arguments about Minimum Wage, then you doubled down and confused it with welfare disincentives to work among women (besides the non-applicability, you were also forgetting, of course, that in a country with a massive, crippling labor surplus you actually want disincentives to work among women). I remembered that you'd had the same sort of reading comprehension problems in previous weeks and tried to do a search, and I ran into a thread from a year ago where you repeatedly got every claim you made completely wrong, then doubled-down with different claims off at weird angles that were also wrong.

I hadn't remembered that you were the same guy, but your issues in logic were exactly the same back then. I invite anyone without such problems to look at the progression and see how bad he is at following a string or backing up the same consistent point with verifiable facts:

Ta-Nehisi Coates dropping more gems on why blacks still getting screwed

 

[David_TheMan]

What name did I call you that you object to?

You had absolutely no scientific study to show that Obamacare was leading to a drop in life expectancy. It was one of the most nonsensical claims I've seen on Higher Learning this year.

You DEFINITELY didn't have any scientific study to show that obesity is not a large factor in the drop in life expectancy. You had an old New York Post article by a pro-obesity activist citing "indeterminate" studies from 40+ years ago.

You also DEFINITELY didn't have any scientific study to show that fast food isn't bad for you.

Nor did you post anything that proved that "calories were calories".

And when I posted responses, especially from researchers who saw this life expectancy drop coming years ago and even showed foreboding drops in nearly every demographic BEFORE Obamacare which suggested an overall drop coming soon, you proved that you had no idea what I had just posted, and just dismissed it like you hadn't even understood what it meant.


Literally NOTHING that you posted in response to me was in response to things I actually argued.


Instead, what you responded with were these weird arguments that were off at weird angles to the points I was making. It was like you took what I said, remade it into something else to fit some pre-held category in your mind, and then posted some defense based on another point that you had already misunderstood. Without fail you were always half-wrong in understanding what argument I had even made, then your defense was half-wrong too on top of that even if you'd been responding to the argument you thought you had read! It was ridiculous to even try to dialogue with that.

I made my points, they still stand there in that thread, and they still have not been countered by you. Until you re-read the thread and try to actually understand what I said correctly, then reply to THAT accurately, it's useless to go on.

And I've seen you do it over and over in other threads too. You have all these ideas, God knows where you got them from, and you shoehorn every discussion to fit into some aspect of your ideas even if it's the wrong one. It's like where I was posting on Universal Basic Income and you confused it with arguments about Minimum Wage, then you doubled down and confused it with welfare disincentives to work among women (besides the non-applicability, you were also forgetting, of course, that in a country with a massive, crippling labor surplus you actually want disincentives to work among women). I remembered that you'd had the same sort of reading comprehension problems in previous weeks and tried to do a search, and I ran into a thread from a year ago where you repeatedly got every claim you made completely wrong, then doubled-down with different claims off at weird angles that were also wrong.

I hadn't remembered that you were the same guy, but your issues in logic were exactly the same back then. I invite anyone without such problems to look at the progression and see how bad he is at following a string or backing up the same consistent point with verifiable facts:

Ta-Nehisi Coates dropping more gems on why blacks still getting screwed

In the post I quoted you called me an idiot incapable of thought but only repeating "hot takes".
In the thread we actually discussed scientifically how calories are just calories to the body, it doesn't see any difference, and I even pulled out a scientific paper that showed you HFCS has no link to increased eating as you tried to claim. On top of that I case by case broke down how your counter claims carried no weight. I even admitted in the thread that some of you were correct it merely noted a correlation, but that your counter claims weren't even able to display a correlative effect.

So now I can say you are actually lying now to save face.

Nothing was weird about any of my argumets, they just didn't line up with your worldview, just like there is nothing weird about your arguments, they just didn't line up with my world view and I presented evidence into how there was no evidence to support anything you were saying.

That said I keep past discussion in past threads, if you want to continue to debate that topic, I'm perfectly fine to continue to do so, but I notice people like yourself when you don't get your way or you aren't able to actually make your point you carry grudges and go about insulting people and generally acting passive aggressive moving on.

You see arguments and discussions in other threads, if you can't contribute to the discussion don't but to set on the side lines and snipe and attack my character and intellect, well I take offense at that because I don't do that to others.

As for your claim where I double down on being wrong, every claim I made in that thread I backed up with source material, while those against me could not or would move the goalpost once they were very explicitly shown they were incorrect, such as the claim that communism doesn't have racism, and me showing direct quotes from Engels and Marx discussing their racist views in private. So again it seems you get very upset and perturbed when I don't bow down to your argument, more than focusing on the actual argument presented and reasoning behind that.

I'm glad you brought the thread up, its funny seeing you scramble in that thread as well.

 

[Joe Sixpack]

Yeah. The same plan just a new name.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As for your claim where I double down on being wrong, every claim I made in that thread I backed up with source material, while those against me could not or would move the goalpost once they were very explicitly shown they were incorrect, such as the claim that communism doesn't have racism, and me showing direct quotes from Engels and Marx discussing their racist views in private. So again it seems you get very upset and perturbed when I don't bow down to your argument, more than focusing on the actual argument presented and reasoning behind that.

I'm glad you brought the thread up, its funny seeing you scramble in that thread as well.

WTH are you talking about?
"Communism doesn't have racism"? Engels and Marx? I ain't never said shyt about any of that.

The only conversation I had with you there was the one regarding Lincoln where even your own links proved you dramatically wrong.

The words "engels" and "marx" aren't even anywhere on that page I linked, and the only person who mentions communism is you, in a reply to some other person for a completely unrelated point. Our discussion entirely revolved around Lincoln.

And I didn't "scramble" in that conversation, I had the last word and your arguments about Lincoln being shot solely because he was a hated corrupt politician, Lincoln being one of the least-liked politicians ever when he was killed, everyone hating him until the 1920s, the 15th Amendment already being in the clear when he was dead, and John Wilkes Booth not killing him because of Lincoln wanting to give rights to Black people were all shown to be ridiculously wrong. And then I showed that your entire argument relied on a book of a Neoconfederate that YOU linked, when you claimed that the argument wasn't associated with Neoconfederates.


See, you're doing it AGAIN. I would think that once this happened enough, it would start to get through your head that it's a problem for you.

I present an issue, you COMPLETELY MAKE UP THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, and then you provide your "proof" that has nothing to do with what I said and act superior like you've proven something right.

Engels and Marx.

In the post I quoted you called me an idiot incapable of thought but only repeating "hot takes".

Where the hell do you find the words "idiot" or "incapable of thought"?

I said that you've been shyt-posting a lot recently and that you don't do research well and have trouble with logic. I also said in another statement that you are constantly twisting what the other person says into something different, then proving "proof" that is also twisted into something different. Like you just did here.

You accused me of name-calling, I said that I hadn't done anything other than describing your behavior, then as "proof" you claim that I called you names that I had never said...and refer back to a comment where I had described your behavior.

In the thread we actually discussed scientifically how calories are just calories to the body, it doesn't see any difference, and I even pulled out a scientific paper that showed you HFCS has no link to increased eating as you tried to claim. On top of that I case by case broke down how your counter claims carried no weight. I even admitted in the thread that some of you were correct it merely noted a correlation, but that your counter claims weren't even able to display a correlative effect.

So now I can say you are actually lying now to save face.

I NEVER claimed that HFCS leads to increased eating. This was yet another time where you randomly made up your own argument in your mind, and then countered it, though it had nothing to do with what I said.

So who is lying to save face? That's three lies just in the first paragraph.

I said that empty calories lead to increased eating. When you intake calories easily without roughage or the rest of the nutrients your body needs (especially via drinks), you tend to keep eating because you don't feel full and because of the simple fact that the calories are easier to ingest and they come faster than your body signals' lag times. It has nothing to do with HFCS at all, and your study had nothing to do with what I said. In fact, the study said there WAS a correlation between soft drink consumption and obesity, which as the ONLY place in which it was relevant to the actual claims I'd made. So the one place where your study was relevant, it supported me.

No, you never ONCE showed that "calories are just calories to the body" "scientifically".

No, you never ONCE broke down any other claims I made. Every time, just like the example above, you misunderstood my argument, then misunderstood the research, and combined the two misunderstandings to end up out in left field somewhere.

 

[Worthless Loser]

Scumbag Paul Ryan ready to do work:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that Republicans would slash federal dollars for Planned Parenthood as part of the GOP effort to repeal the health care law.

Ryan spoke a day after a special House panel issued a report criticizing the organization, which provides birth control, abortions and various women's health services, for its practices regarding providing tissue from aborted fetuses to researchers. The Wisconsin lawmaker's comments, while expected, were the first official word that repeal legislation would also renew the congressional assault on the group.

"The Planned Parenthood legislation would be in our (repeal) bill," Ryan said.

Last year's Obamacare repeal measure also contained the effort to defund the group, which receives government reimbursements from the Medicaid program for non-abortion health services to low-income women. It also receives reimbursements for contraception services from a different government account.

The defunding measure would take away roughly $400 million in Medicaid money from the group in the year after enactment, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and would result in roughly 400,000 women losing access to care. One factor is that being enrolled in Medicaid doesn't guarantee access to a doctor, so women denied Medicaid services from Planned Parenthood may not be able to find replacement care.

Ryan: GOP to 'defund' Planned Parenthood in Obamacare repeal

 

[the cac mamba]

Scumbag Paul Ryan ready to do work:


Ryan: GOP to 'defund' Planned Parenthood in Obamacare repeal

just saw this

god, i hate christians

 

[David_TheMan]

WTH are you talking about?
"Communism doesn't have racism"? Engels and Marx? I ain't never said shyt about any of that.

The only conversation I had with you there was the one regarding Lincoln where even your own links proved you dramatically wrong.

The words "engels" and "marx" aren't even anywhere on that page I linked, and the only person who mentions communism is you, in a reply to some other person for a completely unrelated point. Our discussion entirely revolved around Lincoln.

I'm talking about the thread you posted, unless you have problems reading english I don't understand why you are confused
I never said you said anything about Communism, you literally made that up out of thin air, again, which seems to be a habit with you.
I know about our lincoln convo, and you failed in your argumentation in that debate and we ended it there.

Engels and marx are in the thread so i really don't see what you are talking about, you posted the thread for all to see, now it seems you didn't actually read it, nor my post in this thread that you are quoting.

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/17465319/
Thats the post that got my communist discussion started by the way.

And I didn't "scramble" in that conversation, I had the last word and your arguments about Lincoln being shot solely because he was a hated corrupt politician, Lincoln being one of the least-liked politicians ever when he was killed, everyone hating him until the 1920s, the 15th Amendment already being in the clear when he was dead, and John Wilkes Booth not killing him because of Lincoln wanting to give rights to Black people were all shown to be ridiculously wrong. And then I showed that your entire argument relied on a book of a Neoconfederate that YOU linked, when you claimed that the argument wasn't associated with Neoconfederates.

It was scrambling to me, you can have the last word or the first word, your argumentation was terrible and you never really argued your point. As a matter of fact you keep changing your argument.

See, you're doing it AGAIN. I would think that once this happened enough, it would start to get through your head that it's a problem for you.

I present an issue, you COMPLETELY MAKE UP THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, and then you provide your "proof" that has nothing to do with what I said and act superior like you've proven something right.

Engels and Marx.

The best part of this post and the link is that it proves exactly what I'm talking about you literally make up strawmen arguments and get mad when I tell you that isn't what I said. Its pretty said.

Where the hell do you find the words "idiot" or "incapable of thought"?

I said that you've been shyt-posting a lot recently and that you don't do research well and have trouble with logic. I also said in another statement that you are constantly twisting what the other person says into something different, then proving "proof" that is also twisted into something different. Like you just did here.

You accused me of name-calling, I said that I hadn't done anything other than describing your behavior, then as "proof" you claim that I called you names that I had never said...and refer back to a comment where I had described your behavior.

Sure you didn't you insult me and my intelligence and then claim you didn't do so when your post clearly has you taking personal shots at me and insulting my intelligence. You looking real funny in the light right now.

I NEVER claimed that HFCS leads to increased eating. This was yet another time where you randomly made up your own argument in your mind, and then countered it, though it had nothing to do with what I said.

So who is lying to save face? That's three lies just in the first paragraph.

I said that empty calories lead to increased eating. When you intake calories easily without roughage or the rest of the nutrients your body needs (especially via drinks), you tend to keep eating because you don't feel full and because of the simple fact that the calories are easier to ingest and they come faster than your body signals' lag times. It has nothing to do with HFCS at all, and your study had nothing to do with what I said. In fact, the study said there WAS a correlation between soft drink consumption and obesity, which as the ONLY place in which it was relevant to the actual claims I'd made. So the one place where your study was relevant, it supported me.

No, you never ONCE showed that "calories are just calories to the body" "scientifically".

No, you never ONCE broke down any other claims I made. Every time, just like the example above, you misunderstood my argument, then misunderstood the research, and combined the two misunderstandings to end up out in left field somewhere.

Regoing the argument and her is the post that shuts everything you said down scientifically.
again
http://www.thecoli.com/posts/22396088/

 

[David_TheMan]

Scumbag Paul Ryan ready to do work:


Ryan: GOP to 'defund' Planned Parenthood in Obamacare repeal

I don't mind defunding it completely but Ryan is just dragging his feet providing a alternative for gopcare

 

[im not you]

The earner of income/salary deserves their money that they earned over others, because they actually worked and labored for the income/salary they earned.

2017 and dudes still dont understand what the social contract is

 

[David_TheMan]

2017 and dudes still dont understand what the social contract is

You say that as if a the concept of social contract is real.
It isn't, it was an argumentation, one that I disagree with, mainly on the grounds that I can't be held to a contract I never signed nor agree to. Nor can one use the use of force to force agreement to a contract under threat of violence, thats duress and that invalidates contracts.

 

[im not you]

You say that as if a the concept of social contract is real.
It isn't, it was an argumentation, one that I disagree with, mainly on the grounds that I can't be held to a contract I never signed nor agree to. Nor can one use the use of force to force agreement to a contract under threat of violence, thats duress and that invalidates contracts.

good luck finding a country that doesn't have a social contract breh. i think syria is in anarchy right now, you might enjoy it there