Bill Maher 'May Leave California'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

We have the biggest economy , I do not think it rates the best . There are probably Dictatorships and socialist counties taht out rank America

122

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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:
[/quote]

George HW Bush got nailed because he was caught in a lie before elections. Obama was voted in and the lie did not come to light till after the elections. Get ready guys and gals. The employer mandate will be the individual mandate we are seeing this year next year after the midterm elections. I just do not see the American public falling for this twice. Republicans will take back the Senate and hold the House.

123

I never knew Presidents lied before Bam

124

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Yeah 97% technically isn’t ALL inclsuive lol

I love this subforum…you guys are great…

“Reality has a well known liberal bias”

125

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Now, can we get back to Bill Maher and shit?[/quote]

Agreed. Can’t wait till this one happens!

126

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Yeah 97% technically isn’t ALL inclsuive lol

I love this subforum…you guys are great…

“Reality has a well known liberal bias”[/quote]

Did I say anthropogenic global warming wasn’t real?

No.

Did I make a value claim in that post about whether or not I personally believe anthropogenic global warming is real or false?

No.

Do you work in science? No you don’t. I do.

Did pittbull make an inaccurate generalization statement? Yes, he fucking well did.

127

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Yeah 97% technically isn’t ALL inclsuive lol

I love this subforum…you guys are great…

“Reality has a well known liberal bias”[/quote]

Can you back up the 97% of Scientist believe that humans are causing the “Climate Change”?

128

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Yeah 97% technically isn’t ALL inclsuive lol

I love this subforum…you guys are great…

“Reality has a well known liberal bias”[/quote]

Did I say anthropogenic global warming wasn’t real?

No.

Did I make a value claim in that post about whether or not I personally believe anthropogenic global warming is real or false?

No.

Do you work in science? No you don’t. I do.

Did pittbull make an inaccurate generalization statement? Yes, he fucking well did.

[/quote]

I do as well. So what’s your position? You are jsut talking in circles and appealing to some authority of a nobel laureate (we all know how much respect you guys have for nobel prize winners). So instead of throwing words around, why don’t you just clarify your position for us?

129

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Can you back up the 97% of Scientist believe that humans are causing the “Climate Change”?[/quote]

Of course I can…and with a little effort and an open mind (be careful you don’t want your brain to fall out!) you could too!

130

I mean shit, you are performing modern miracles getting some of these knuckle draggers to even acknowledge the temperatures are trending upwards in the first place!!!

131

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Can you back up the 97% of Scientist believe that humans are causing the “Climate Change”?[/quote]

Of course I can…and with a little effort and an open mind (be careful you don’t want your brain to fall out!) you could too![/quote]

Don’t hurt yourself now.

132

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Now, can we get back to Bill Maher and shit?[/quote]

Agreed. Can’t wait till this one happens!

[quote]
In lots of areas, California seems to have decided not to wait around for the knuckle-draggers and the selfish libertarian states to get on board. They can mock “European style democracies” all they want, we are building one here, and people like it – the same way when Americans come back from a vacation in Europe they all say the same thing: “Wow, you can see titties on the beach!” But they also remark on the clean air, the modern, first world infrastructure, the functioning social safety net, and bread that doesn’t taste like powdered glue. And they wonder, “Why can’t we get that here?” Unless they’re Republicans, in which case they wonder, “How can people live like that?”

Well, swallow hard, guys, because California is eventually going to make all Americans live like that. Why? Because we’re huge. The 12th largest economy in the world, the fifth largest agricultural exporter in the world, and of course number one in laser vaginal rejuvenation. There’s 40 million of us – so, for example, when California set a high mileage standard for any car sold in this state, Detroit had to make more fuel-efficient cars; we’re just too big a slice of the market, and it would be too expensive to make one car for us, and another for shit-kickers who want something that runs on coal.

It’s so ironic – the two things conservatives love the most, the free market and states rights – are the two things that are going to bend this country into California’s image as a socialist fagtopia. Maybe our constipated Congress can’t pass gun control laws, but we just did. Lots of 'em. Because we don’t give a shit about the NRA. Out here that stands for “Nuts, Racists, and Assholes.” So while the rest of America is debating whether it’s a good idea to allow guns in bars or a great idea to allow guns in bars, California is about to ban lead bullets. Which is a no-brainer, because bullets don’t need lead, and lead kills birds and gets into the food supply of people who hunt their own food. Which explains why Ted Nugent is such a raving lunatic.
[/quote][/quote]

I think some of this should be put into a more accurate context, particularly the stats mentioned.

  • “California has the 12th largest economy in the world.” We used to be the 5th.

  • “Ranked #1 in laser vaginal rejuvenation.” Well yes because we film more porn here than anywhere else.

  • “California set a high mileage standard.” Yet we sport the highest gas tax.

Added to this I want to add that California has some of the highest energy prices in the country.

  • “Maybe Congress can’t pass gun control laws, but California just did.” California already had a sharp decline in gun deaths and injuries while gun sales topped over 600,000 last year.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/california-crime-drops-as-gun-sales-surge/

  • “California love the free market.” California ranks 44th in change in GDP from 2008-2012, but ranks #1 in GDP for 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/highest-gdp-growth-states

  • “Ted Nugent is a raving lunatic.” Perhaps, but the people were smart enough not to vote him into office.
133

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Socialist - Not really mentioned in serious circles.
[/quote]

Obama has been called a socialist by Republican leaders since he got into office. [/quote]

Like I said. Not really mentioned in serious circles.

134

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I tend to agree with the scientists [/quote]

Accept when it comes to abortion…

135

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Yeah 97% technically isn’t ALL inclsuive lol

I love this subforum…you guys are great…

“Reality has a well known liberal bias”[/quote]

Did I say anthropogenic global warming wasn’t real?

No.

Did I make a value claim in that post about whether or not I personally believe anthropogenic global warming is real or false?

No.

Do you work in science? No you don’t. I do.

Did pittbull make an inaccurate generalization statement? Yes, he fucking well did.

[/quote]

I do as well. So what’s your position? You are jsut talking in circles and appealing to some authority of a nobel laureate (we all know how much respect you guys have for nobel prize winners). So instead of throwing words around, why don’t you just clarify your position for us?
[/quote]

No, if you were paying attention you’d notice I made no such appeal to authority for the truth of a position. To do so would have been to say a variation of “so and so says global warming is bullshit, so it must be bullshit”.

What I actually said was, “so and so and a number of other highly regarded scientists feel global warming is bullshit, therefore one cannot claim the generalization ‘The Scientists’ as one body agree on something”. There is a substantial difference between the two; one is fallacious and the other is not.

What exactly do you do in science?

136

Why-o-why do people care what overpaid, out of touch Hollywood entertainers think?

137

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I tend to agree with the scientists [/quote]

Accept when it comes to abortion…[/quote]

what do you deem that I disagree with the scientific comunity about ?

138

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I tend to agree with the scientists [/quote]

Accept when it comes to abortion…[/quote]

what do you deem that I disagree with the scientific comunity about ?[/quote]

Maybe when you determined that a sperm is a human being, which came after claiming a zygote wasn’t…

139

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
What I actually said was, “so and so and a number of other highly regarded scientists feel global warming is bullshit, therefore one cannot claim the generalization ‘The Scientists’ as one body agree on something”. There is a substantial difference between the two; one is fallacious and the other is not.

[/quote]

To which I retorted “97% is technically not ALL”…would you or would you not agree that 97% is a pretty fucking high number? If 97% of, say, roads in Pennsylvania were in terrible condition, would you not say “man those roads in Pennsylvania are awful”? You sound like you are just arguing for fucking arguments sake at this point man. Real mature.

140

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I tend to agree with the scientists [/quote]

Accept when it comes to abortion…[/quote]

what do you deem that I disagree with the scientific comunity about ?[/quote]

Maybe when you determined that a sperm is a human being, which came after claiming a zygote wasn’t…[/quote]

The definition of words is not a scientific issue , I never said a zygote was not they both are if human and they exist they are a human being . No science just a literal definition