New names.

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
gongoozler
Pilot Officer
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by gongoozler »

O Really wrote:
gongoozler wrote:
Vrede wrote:Mother Jones did make a splash recently. It released the tape of Mitten telling fat cats that he does not care about the "47%" parasites, like "Reality". Of course, Mother Jones didn't have to do any editorializing, Mitten's own words were sufficient.
Do you really think that Mittens said he did not care about the 47%, as in, not give a rip about them?

He was saying that no matter what he does there are about 47% of the population that won't vote for him. As in, I don't need to focus my time trying to sway about 47% of the voters because it's a lost cause. Not that he doesn't care about them as in their welfare.
No, that wasn't it. He said that, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. But then he went on to describe them as "victims" "irresponsible," yada. That's what he's getting deservedly ripped for. If he'd just said "47% of the people are hard-core Democratic supporters, and I would be wasting my time to try to get their vote" nobody would have noticed.
I was responding to Vrede's comment: "It released the tape of Mitten telling fat cats that he does not care about the "47%" parasites, like "Reality"".

He did not say he does not care for them.

User avatar
gongoozler
Pilot Officer
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by gongoozler »

Full quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"My job is not to worry about those people"... as in worry about convincing them to vote for him.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23651
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by O Really »

gongoozler wrote:Full quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"My job is not to worry about those people"... as in worry about convincing them to vote for him.
Would be...except for that part that comes after "I'll never convince them..." That should have ended with something about voting or supporting him. "...Should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" doesn't sound much like a voter support issue. In any case, he said what he said, and varied interpretations notwithstanding, a word for word quote provided fodder for a lot of Dem cannons, so all is good.

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

mike wrote:
Leo Lyons wrote:BTW, I Googled 'neoplacebo'; the nearest word it could come up with was 'no place'. Now we know.
You are obviously uneducated as to the history of the wonderful poster known as "placebo."
neoplacebo
- no dictionary results found

No results found for neoplacebo:

Did you mean no place ?

placebo

No Place

No Place to Be
And a liar.
Oops.

A "wonderful poster"? How much were you paid to say that? :lol: :lol:

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Vrede wrote: -0-? I don't even know where to start. ;) 8-) :D
Same here, Vrede ... thanks for trying.

That was a weird post from "Guest."
Image

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

Vrede wrote:
mike wrote:...That was a weird post from "Guest."
Faked or really doesn't know how to separate a prefix? We may never know.
"Opps"! Forgot to credit Dictionary.com for it's definition of "neoplacebo":

neoplacebo
- no dictionary results found

No results found for neoplacebo:

Did you mean no place ?

placebo

No Place

No Place to Be


The post caught my attention because I knew what a placebo is, but not a neoplacebo. Oh well, It's done.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Vrede wrote:
mike wrote:...That was a weird post from "Guest."
Faked or really doesn't know how to separate a prefix? We may never know.
One would think a person could understand the prefix "neo" as in a "neocon." Also, the meaning of "placebo" should be well known.

And, yes, placebo aka neoplacebo is a wonderful poster!

Also, one of my first posts to neoplacebo was mentioning I could've joined as "neomike" but I'm just "mike."

These people aren't tracking very well ...
Image

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by Stinger »

O Really wrote: No, that wasn't it. He said that, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. But then he went on to describe them as "victims" "irresponsible," yada. That's what he's getting deservedly ripped for. If he'd just said "47% of the people are hard-core Democratic supporters, and I would be wasting my time to try to get their vote" nobody would have noticed.
But dimwit Willard confused two groups -- Obama voters and government beneficiaries.

Actually, 49% receive government benefits: Medicaid: 26 percent; Social Security: 16 percent; Food stamps: 16 percent; Medicare: 15 percent; Women, Infants and Children food program: 8 percent.

Those aren't automatically Obama voters.

46% pay no income tax: About 22 percent get tax breaks for senior citizens that offset their income; About 15 percent get tax breaks for the working poor or low-income parents; Almost 3 percent get tax breaks for college tuition or other education expenses.

PeopleThe vast majority have below-average earnings: Among all who don't owe, 9 out of 10 make $50,000 or less; about 4,000 households earning more than $1 million a year.

Those certainly aren't all automatically Obama voters.


Obama voters: Most are employed: Sixty-two percent of the Obama voters work, including the 10 percent working only part time' A fourth are retired; Five percent say they're temporarily unemployed.

Most earn higher-than-average wages. Fifty-six percent have household incomes above the U.S. median of $50,000. Just 16 percent have incomes below $30,000, and about the same share (20 percent) have incomes of $100,000 or more.
—They're all ages but skew younger than Romney's voters: Twenty percent are senior citizens and 12 percent are under age 30.
—They're more educated than the overall population: Forty-three percent boast four-year college degrees or above; 21 percent topped out with a high school diploma.

The usual con/Pub talk is that Obama only gets elected because welfare people all vote for him. Rush claims -- mistakenly, as is most often the case -- that welfare people turn out in force and vote. Their meme is that that's the only way Obama can get elected.

Newsflash: Poor people vote the least by a factor of more than 3. They have piss poor voter turnout. Both those making under $15,000 a year and those making over $200,000 each made 6% of voter turnout in 2008.

But those making under $15,000 a year make up 13% of the population while those making over $200,000 make up less than 4% of the population.

Get that? Even though there are more than 3 times as many making less than $15,000 than there are making over $200,000, they both vote at the same rate. Look at it another way. The poorest people in the U.S. vote at 1/3 the rate of rich people.

More wingnut delusions bite the dust.

AntiAlias
Pilot Officer
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:14 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by AntiAlias »

Guest wrote:
Vrede wrote:
mike wrote:...That was a weird post from "Guest."
Faked or really doesn't know how to separate a prefix? We may never know.
"Opps"! Forgot to credit Dictionary.com for it's definition of "neoplacebo":

neoplacebo
- no dictionary results found

No results found for neoplacebo:

Did you mean no place ?

placebo

No Place

No Place to Be


The post caught my attention because I knew what a placebo is, but not a neoplacebo. Oh well, It's done.
Pathetic.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 23651
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by O Really »

Stinger wrote:
O Really wrote: No, that wasn't it. He said that, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. But then he went on to describe them as "victims" "irresponsible," yada. That's what he's getting deservedly ripped for. If he'd just said "47% of the people are hard-core Democratic supporters, and I would be wasting my time to try to get their vote" nobody would have noticed.
But dimwit Willard confused two groups -- Obama voters and government beneficiaries.

Actually, 49% receive government benefits: Medicaid: 26 percent; Social Security: 16 percent; Food stamps: 16 percent; Medicare: 15 percent; Women, Infants and Children food program: 8 percent.

Those aren't automatically Obama voters.
...
.
Well, no, they aren't. Had Romney said 47% are hard core Obama supporters, he would have been inaccurate, but would not have had his tail in a crack over it. Had he accurately described those who receive government benefits, he wouldn't have had his tail in a crack. Had he said almost anything that wasn't snidely, condescendingly, sneeringly, and disrespectful about 47% of the population, he wouldn't have had his tail in a crack.

Sometime Lefty
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:09 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Sometime Lefty »

Guest wrote:
A "wonderful poster"? How much were you paid to say that? :lol: :lol:
Placebo is one of the most imaginative posters I have come across!

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

AntiAlias wrote:Pathetic.
So you got a problem with that or something? Do you always address yourself as Pathetic?

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Guest wrote:
AntiAlias wrote:Pathetic.
So you got a problem with that or something? Do you always address yourself as Pathetic?
Do you always have a reading comprehension issue?
Image

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

mike wrote:
Guest wrote:
AntiAlias wrote:Pathetic.
So you got a problem with that or something? Do you always address yourself as Pathetic?
Do you always have a reading comprehension issue?
So if I do, you got a problem with that or something? I've not crossed you, AntiAlias, or neoplacebo. My posts were in jest.

I'm trying to stay civil, don't blow it, I can get nasty, and you won't like me when I get nasty, and I'm not even a liberal.

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Guest wrote:
mike wrote:
Guest wrote:
AntiAlias wrote:Pathetic.
So you got a problem with that or something? Do you always address yourself as Pathetic?
Do you always have a reading comprehension issue?
So if I do, you got a problem with that or something? I've not crossed you, AntiAlias, or neoplacebo. My posts were in jest.

I'm trying to stay civil, don't blow it, I can get nasty, and you won't like me when I get nasty, and I'm not even a liberal.
Civil?
You were addressing AntiAlias as being pathetic.
Don't be such a wuss and run away all the while tossing out veiled threats. Man-up, son.
Image

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Vrede wrote:To be fair, AntiAlias called "Guest" pathetic for being dumb and/or silly re the definition of "neoplacebo" and "Guest" threw it back at him.
Yeah, I know.
For him to turn around and attempt to indicate he's being "civil" is nothing less than disingenuous.

Just trying to keep him honest ...
Image

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

mike wrote: Civil? You were addressing AntiAlias as being pathetic.
Don't be such a wuss and run away all the while tossing out veiled threats. Man-up, son.
I'll ask you what you asked me: "Do you always have a reading comprehension issue?"

I re-posted explaining my search on the word neoplacebo, as I forgot to state where i got the info. AntiAlias, who had no connection to the post called me pathetic, and I handed it back to him. That was being civil, and any threat I "toss out" will not be veiled. I can get just as nasty as Stinger, CrockHunter, or any other foul mouth. So don't call me son.
Vrede wrote:To be fair, AntiAlias called "Guest" pathetic for being dumb and/or silly re the definition of "neoplacebo" and "Guest" threw it back at him.
Thank you.
mike wrote:For him to turn around and attempt to indicate he's being "civil" is nothing less than disingenuous. Just trying to keep him honest ...
I can be very "ingenious" as well, and I have no problem with honesty.

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Vrede wrote:I took "I can get nasty, and you won't like me when I get nasty" as tongue-in-cheek that he was going to throw some sort of goofy Rasta-stoner temper tantrum, not that he was going to get physical.
Perhaps ... guess I'll back off for a bit and see where Guest goes.

For now, I'll respect him and his avowal of honesty.

Sorry, Guest.
Image

User avatar
Guest
Red Shirt
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:43 am

Re: New names.

Unread post by Guest »

mike wrote:
Vrede wrote:I took "I can get nasty, and you won't like me when I get nasty" as tongue-in-cheek that he was going to throw some sort of goofy Rasta-stoner temper tantrum, not that he was going to get physical.
Perhaps ... guess I'll back off for a bit and see where Guest goes.

For now, I'll respect him and his avowal of honesty.

Sorry, Guest.
Apology accepted.

User avatar
mike
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: New names.

Unread post by mike »

Guest wrote:
mike wrote:
Vrede wrote:I took "I can get nasty, and you won't like me when I get nasty" as tongue-in-cheek that he was going to throw some sort of goofy Rasta-stoner temper tantrum, not that he was going to get physical.
Perhaps ... guess I'll back off for a bit and see where Guest goes.

For now, I'll respect him and his avowal of honesty.

Sorry, Guest.
Apology accepted.
Thank you. I meant it sincerely. Much appreciated. Image
Image

Post Reply