Bill Maher 'May Leave California'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I was talking with my tax guy yesterday, and he told me that with California having a population of 38 million, only 300,000 people pay their taxes.

[/quote]

Pure, unadulterated, absolute bullshit.

In 2010, 36.6 percent of California filers paid no federal income tax [that leaves a fuckton more than 300,000 taxpayers]:

And 14 million pay full state taxes:

You should get a new tax guy who knows what the fuck he’s talking about.
[/quote]

Is a fuck ton larger or smaller than a metric shit ton?

102

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Don’t get me started on climate change deniers, that is a whole 'nother level of stupidity…
[/quote]

I am curious , I tend to agree with the scientists and we could be FUCKED in just a few short years , do you agree ?

103

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Don’t get me started on climate change deniers, that is a whole 'nother level of stupidity…
[/quote]

I am curious , I tend to agree with the scientists and we could be FUCKED in just a few short years , do you agree ?
[/quote]

Pitt,

Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year.

104

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I was talking with my tax guy yesterday, and he told me that with California having a population of 38 million, only 300,000 people pay their taxes.

[/quote]

Pure, unadulterated, absolute bullshit.

In 2010, 36.6 percent of California filers paid no federal income tax [that leaves a fuckton more than 300,000 taxpayers]:

And 14 million pay full state taxes:

You should get a new tax guy who knows what the fuck he’s talking about.
[/quote]

Is a fuck ton larger or smaller than a metric shit ton?[/quote]

I believe that–somewhat counter-intuitively–it is much larger than a buttload, but smaller than a metric shit ton by a considerable margin. Definitely nowhere near an Ass-tronomical Unit.

105

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I was talking with my tax guy yesterday, and he told me that with California having a population of 38 million, only 300,000 people pay their taxes.

[/quote]

Pure, unadulterated, absolute bullshit.

In 2010, 36.6 percent of California filers paid no federal income tax [that leaves a fuckton more than 300,000 taxpayers]:

And 14 million pay full state taxes:

You should get a new tax guy who knows what the fuck he’s talking about.
[/quote]

Is a fuck ton larger or smaller than a metric shit ton?[/quote]

I believe that–somewhat counter-intuitively–it is much larger than a buttload, but smaller than a metric shit ton by a considerable margin. Definitely nowhere near an Ass-tronomical Unit.[/quote]

Trying to convert those units is like trying to count from one to purple.

106

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important

107

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Do you know how many times in human history that the end of the world was predicted ? From ancient civilizations to present day ? Yes, I think the date is important when suggesting we change our behavior to avoid an upcoming apocalypse.

108

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Don’t get me started on climate change deniers, that is a whole 'nother level of stupidity…
[/quote]

I am curious , I tend to agree with the scientists and we could be FUCKED in just a few short years , do you agree ?
[/quote]

Pitt, there’s not just one group of “the scientists” that agree on shit. it is not a monolithic group. For example, I talked with a Nobel Laureate in chemistry just a couple weeks ago who thinks global warming is a crock of shit. There are other highly qualified scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming (in chemistry and other related fields, even including ecology, geology, and other directly related fields).

You can’t necessarily discount these people. And because of that, you can’t say “The Scientists” agree on global warming. In fact, to say “The Scientists” agree on most any modern issue of scientific research is ludicrously uninformed.

Now, can we get back to Bill Maher and shit?

109

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Your post specifically implied a short time span, one which you would see in your lifetime. Therefore you cannot say you don’t care about the date, unless you are speaking literally, and thats a bullshit semantic argument and you know it.

110

I give him credit of being more critical than others in his position have been.

111

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Your post specifically implied a short time span, one which you would see in your lifetime. Therefore you cannot say you don’t care about the date, unless you are speaking literally, and thats a bullshit semantic argument and you know it.[/quote]

Why is everything debated ? I do not care if it is 2014 2015 2016 2017 just so it is not2018 :slight_smile: I believe we are already seeing the effects of climate change and I think the symptoms will only progress and yes I think there will witness serious consequences before I die . It is just my opinion

112

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I give him credit of being more critical than others in his position have been. [/quote]

He is an asshole, but he does call them like he sees them.

Regarding the larger question: these assholes are saying “Oh, it doesn’t matter, yadda yadda. Only 5 percent lose their coverage.”

Well, I’m doing this in my head, but that 5 percent represents a larger number of people than was the margin of voters by which he won reelection. So yeah, it kind of matters. And even if my math was off there, which I’m petty sure it wasn’t, a lie is a lie is a lie.

If Bush had said something like that, and it had turned out to be untrue like this, the people on that panel would be pulling their hair out and spitting fire.

113

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I give him credit of being more critical than others in his position have been. [/quote]

He is an asshole, but he does call them like he sees them.

Regarding the larger question: these assholes are saying “Oh, it doesn’t matter, yadda yadda. Only 5 percent lose their coverage.”

Well, I’m doing this in my head, but that 5 percent represents a larger number of people than was the margin of voters by which he won reelection. So yeah, it kind of matters. And even if my math was off there, which I’m petty sure it wasn’t, a lie is a lie is a lie.

If Bush had said something like that, and it had turned out to be untrue like this, the people on that panel would be pulling their hair out and spitting fire.[/quote]

BINGO, on all fucking counts.

114

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I give him credit of being more critical than others in his position have been. [/quote]

He is an asshole, but he does call them like he sees them.

Regarding the larger question: these assholes are saying “Oh, it doesn’t matter, yadda yadda. Only 5 percent lose their coverage.”

Well, I’m doing this in my head, but that 5 percent represents a larger number of people than was the margin of voters by which he won reelection. So yeah, it kind of matters. And even if my math was off there, which I’m petty sure it wasn’t, a lie is a lie is a lie.

If Bush had said something like that, and it had turned out to be untrue like this, the people on that panel would be pulling their hair out and spitting fire.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

115

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Your post specifically implied a short time span, one which you would see in your lifetime. Therefore you cannot say you don’t care about the date, unless you are speaking literally, and thats a bullshit semantic argument and you know it.[/quote]

Why is everything debated ? I do not care if it is 2014 2015 2016 2017 just so it is not2018 :slight_smile: I believe we are already seeing the effects of climate change and I think the symptoms will only progress and yes I think there will witness serious consequences before I die . It is just my opinion
[/quote]

And that is fine that it is your opinion. I wasn’t criticizing you having that opinion. I was criticizing you doing something else.

116

I think Bam will take heat and he should but America missed the best opportunity to have the best health care in the World , thanks to the efforts of the republicans

117

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Your post specifically implied a short time span, one which you would see in your lifetime. Therefore you cannot say you don’t care about the date, unless you are speaking literally, and thats a bullshit semantic argument and you know it.[/quote]

Why is everything debated ? I do not care if it is 2014 2015 2016 2017 just so it is not2018 :slight_smile: I believe we are already seeing the effects of climate change and I think the symptoms will only progress and yes I think there will witness serious consequences before I die . It is just my opinion
[/quote]

And that is fine that it is your opinion. I wasn’t criticizing you having that opinion. I was criticizing you doing something else.[/quote]

what was I doing ?

118

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think Bam will take heat and he should but America missed the best opportunity to have the best health care in the World , thanks to the efforts of the republicans [/quote]

Why would you want the best health care in the world? You hate the fact we have the best economy and are the best at creating millionaires.

119

SMH,

It could not have been said any better.

120

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Al Gore claimed the polar ice cap could be gone by 2014. I can’t predict the future, but I feel confident it will still be there next year. [/quote]

No one can predict the future and I do not think the date is important [/quote]

Your post specifically implied a short time span, one which you would see in your lifetime. Therefore you cannot say you don’t care about the date, unless you are speaking literally, and thats a bullshit semantic argument and you know it.[/quote]

Why is everything debated ? I do not care if it is 2014 2015 2016 2017 just so it is not2018 :slight_smile: I believe we are already seeing the effects of climate change and I think the symptoms will only progress and yes I think there will witness serious consequences before I die . It is just my opinion
[/quote]

And that is fine that it is your opinion. I wasn’t criticizing you having that opinion. I was criticizing you doing something else.[/quote]

what was I doing ?[/quote]

Here, I’ll quote from my first response to you…

[quote]Pitt, there’s not just one group of “the scientists” that agree on shit. it is not a monolithic group. For example, I talked with a Nobel Laureate in chemistry just a couple weeks ago who thinks global warming is a crock of shit. There are other highly qualified scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming (in chemistry and other related fields, even including ecology, geology, and other directly related fields).

You can’t necessarily discount these people. And because of that, you can’t say “The Scientists” agree on global warming. In fact, to say “The Scientists” agree on most any modern issue of scientific research is ludicrously uninformed.[/quote]

You absolutely cannot generalize “The Scientists” as one group in agreement on anything. You thus imply that the other side has no intellectual capacity–either doing this as an attempt to politicize them or doing it as an attempt to write them off wholesale. But it is improper, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest–most particularly when there are very highly qualified and very highly regarded scientists in the other camp. These are scientists doing major research, getting major funding at big universities. Or in Dr. Mullis’ case, winning Nobel Prizes.