Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    I guess in your mind, she should of stayed in office, wasted millions of dollars of government money and untold staff manpower on these frivolous lawsuits?? Plus spend hundreds of thousands of her PERSONAL money on lawsuits that were fake??

    ? "Frivolous"..."fake"...what are you talking about? You may want to expand your knowledge about Sarah Palin beyond here Wikipedia page.

    Sarah Palin has been found in violation of a state ethics law on one occasion, and on another occasion has been required to pay the state back money used for personal travel.

  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    leo707 says

    Posting a Wikipedia entry quoting a known oath-breaker and liar is not that compelling to me.

    Nice cop out... Prove that it is incorrect, go ahead....

    ? what cop-out?

    Are you saying that you trust the resignation speech of a politician? A politician who with great pomp and circumstance recites the Pledge of Allegiance, then supports groups that are in direct violation of the Pledge?

    How about this...you prove that she did not resign and then embark on a career in reality-TV.

  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    leo707 says

    So...then in your eyes the time-honored tradition of resigning a post when one is elected to a higher office is equivalent to resigning ones position to pursue a career in reality-TV?

    Resigned for reality TV... Hmm... You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts....

    Posting a Wikipedia entry quoting a known oath-breaker and liar is not that compelling to me. How about looking into the facts of what she decided to do with her time after quitting as governor?

    Are you suggesting that after quitting a job that Palin swore to complete she did not launch a reality-TV career?

  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    thomaswong.1986 says

    leo707 says

    Sarah Palin's oath to support and defend the Constitution = FAIL

    Sarah Palin's pledge of allegiance to the US = FAIL

    And Martin Bashir, a foreign citizen, is he ready to swear allegiance ... and to who ?

    Who do you trust more?

    An outside observer with unknown loyalties.

    -or-

    Someone who has pledged loyalty to your country; then demonstratively broken the pledge and has show support for seditious and traitorous groups that could -- if they had their way -- literally plunge our country into another civil war.

    For me anyway, I would have less trust for someone who has already shown that they want to drive my country to ruin and division.

  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    thomaswong.1986 says

    leo707 says

    Being that Sarah "Oath-Breaker"

    You mean Obama not upholding and enforcing the US constitution because

    Actually, no I was referring to Sarah Palin's borderline seditious behavior and her seemingly complete lack of a moral or ethical backbone when it comes to honoring her commitments.

    thomaswong.1986 says

    How about all the wire taps and Prism programs ? How you feeling about that.

    I think that they are awful, and I would love it if the Republicans would actually wrest control of their party back from the criminally insane, and field candidates that would not just amplify the same abhorrent programs that Obama has allowed to continue.

    I guess I am to assume then that you are condemning Palin's oath-breaking with the same vim-and-vigor you use for Obama.

  • On 11 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    Wow, Alaska seceded from the US while Palin was governor?

    Haha, silly Crazy! No...no...Palin only supported and exalted the virtues of an organization that is pushing for the succession of Alaska. Why, if they had been successful she never would have been picked as McCain's running mate -- assuming that she survived the civil war following an Alaskan attempt to secede --, but maybe they would have made her the Queen of Alaska!

    Call it Crazy says

    leo707 says

    Did Sarah Palin not take the oath of office for Governor of Alaska? I don't think that resigning a post counts as "...faithfully discharge [ones] duties..."

    I see, double standard... She can't do it but Obama can as Senator...

    So...then in your eyes the time-honored tradition of resigning a post when one is elected to a higher office is equivalent to resigning ones position to pursue a career in reality-TV? Hmmm...not the way I see it, but I guess for some realty-TV is pretty important American institution.

  • On 10 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    leo707 says

    You are talking about Palin, right? Yeah, she did pledge to "...support and defend..." the constitutions of the US and Alaska. Then she broke that pledge.

    How so??

    Did Sarah Palin not take the oath of office for Governor of Alaska? I don't think that resigning a post counts as "...faithfully discharge [ones] duties..."

    Sarah Palin's oath of office = FAIL

    How about when Palin says, "...indivisible..." in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States? Did you know that the Alaskan Supreme Court has ruled that any attempt for Alaska to secede from the US would be in violation of the Alaskan Constitution? Care to guess what the US Constitution would say about that?

    After Palin's oath to "...support and defend..." both the Alaskan and US Constitution she attended events of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) calling them "inspirational." At one time her husband was also a member of the AIP. The AIP is of course famous for pressing for Alaska to succeed from the US. Inspirational, indeed...I don't know about you but praising an organization that is in direct Constitutional violation would not, in my book, be supporting and defending the Constitution. In fact I believe it to be the opposite.

    Sarah Palin's oath to support and defend the Constitution = FAIL

    Sarah Palin's pledge of allegiance to the US = FAIL

  • On 10 Dec 2013 in This might have been too complimentary, leo707 said:

    thomaswong.1986 says

    which one of these already pledged to protect the state and US constitution...

    You are talking about Palin, right? Yeah, she did pledge to "...support and defend..." the constitutions of the US and Alaska. Then she broke that pledge.

    To be fair, part of her broke oath of office was, "...I will faithfully discharge my duties as Governor to the best of my ability." If Palin was to make the argument that, as an inept governor, the best duty she could perform as governor of Alaska was to resign. Then she may not have technically violated that pledge.

    Being that Sarah "Oath-Breaker" Palin has not yet made such an argument we can only assume that her pledge to the US Constitution, the Alaskan Constitution, and to the duties as Governor was worth less to her than the prospect of making millions as a reality-TV star.

  • On 4 Dec 2013 in Black Friday Debate: What are the US' problems and how would you solve them?, leo707 said:

    Reality says

    ...and I found this claim to be an entirely made-up bald-faced lie, that has absolutely no grounding in any reality whatsoever -- including "reality" as perceived by a hysterical mescaline junky.

    With lots of legitimate apologist arguments as to why the US infant mortality is so much more worse than many other countries why resort to such an outrageously transparent and verifiable lie?

    If your intent is to play an absurd internet character making tea-servatives appear to be dangerously insane then, congratulations well done sir!

    It is not a lie, but a fact on the ground that your pea brain is too small to comprehend. Cuban government infant mortality tally does not register a person as being born until 10 months after birth.

    Wow, I would think that you would at least reference the original source of the lie. Then again truthiness is probably your reference, so then no real proof...

    On the same note...the existence of The Great A'tuin is an actual fact on the ground that your quark sized brain is too small to comprehend.

    And...before you mention that a quark is too small to be considered a brain; the fact that you have a quark sized brain is also another fact that your brain is too small to comprehend.

    I like the way you prove facts, it is so refreshingly to be unburdened by having to do actual research or corroboration with the real world.

  • On 3 Dec 2013 in Black Friday Debate: What are the US' problems and how would you solve them?, leo707 said:

    Reality says

    CL says

    Reality says

    Like which one? Cuba where the average patients wait to die while the best doctors treat foreign dignitaries?

    Cuba has better care for many people, including lower infant mortality rates. I mean, if you care about dead babies.

    Did you look into how "infant mortality" is tallied in Cuba?

    Yes...

    Reality says

    The newborn is not counted until it is 10months old! Yes, in the Orwellian world that is Cuba, a newborn that dies in the first 10 months is not born at all! Most real infant mortality takes place in the first 10 months!

    ...and I found this claim to be an entirely made-up bald-faced lie, that has absolutely no grounding in any reality whatsoever -- including "reality" as perceived by a hysterical mescaline junky.

    With lots of legitimate apologist arguments as to why the US infant mortality is so much more worse than many other countries why resort to such an outrageously transparent and verifiable lie?

    If your intent is to play an absurd internet character making tea-servatives appear to be dangerously insane then, congratulations well done sir!

  • On 22 Nov 2013 in Single Payer: We told you so, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    I don't disagree if we could magically transform our entire healthcare industry in the blink of an eye to try it out, but moving to that model would be politically unpopular and very painful in my opinion...who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

    Politically unpopular, very painful...I think you are right. We can dream though right ;)

    debyne says

    However, I think we could get as good or better than Singapore if we morphed our existing model into competing HMOs.

    I had Kaiser for many years and did "enjoy" it, there are a lot of great things about it, but today its system would not be ideal to fit my needs. I think that the HMOs can be good examples of what private firms do well with healthcare, but they still have some pretty big deficiencies and depending on ones needs/condition the choices are very limited. Also, competing HMOs is still going to give the consumer a very limited "free market" experience; one still gets "locked in" to an HMO for a term (year?) and if they need a procedure they are stuck with in-house pricing and cannot "shop around."

    I don't think that we would get very close to the efficiency in Singapore, because they have seemed to have struck a balance of when it is more efficient for the government to step in and take over care. A lot of that care, which is a lot of the heavy lifting in a healthcare system, is not run efficiently under the HMO system.

    Also, now that I am thinking of it, HMOs are an option in our current system. If they could really provide healthcare at ~%25 of the current US cost (as does Singapore) one would think that they would be doing so, and US consumers would be flocking to them. At my current work HMOs are an option, but they are not priced any better. What is stopping them from becoming more efficient and competing the other options out of business?

  • On 22 Nov 2013 in Single Payer: We told you so, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    leo707 says

    Why add a government layer? Because -- as shown by every other industrialized nation -- it seems to work.

    But other countries' single payer setups are different than what you're proposing. They don't have insurance companies and they collect the revenue, pay out the claims, etc., and proposing that type of model would be astronomical change.

    Right, -- well, sort of* -- and these other single payer systems do it all much cheaper, by at least half, than we do with our massive private insurance system.

    * This was "sort of" because the examples I used were Singapore which does have a layer of private insurance. However, Singapore's private insurance is primarily utilized by only the wealthy and can only be used once one is fully vested in the government plans. A majority of Singapore's system is based on a single payer, and they have one of the most effective -- both in cost and results -- healthcare systems in the world.

    There is no healthcare system in the industrialized world similar to what you propose. It seems that one of the best and most cost effective systems is to be like Singapore; having a strong government role in: regulation, long-term care, chronic conditions, etc; having everyone required to pay into the government system before they can buy private insurance; having private "free-market" competition do what it does best in healthcare: critical care, checkups, preventative care, elective procedures, etc.

  • On 22 Nov 2013 in Single Payer: We told you so, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    Dan8267 says

    Single payer is not health insurance. Medicare is.

    Single payer does not take tax dollars. Medicare does.

    Why would you want to add another layer of administrative BS in the whole process? Right now, we have providers and insurance companies. Now you want to add a gov't layer on top of all that?

    Why add a government layer? Because -- as shown by every other industrialized nation -- it seems to work.

    It would be great if we had a system as cost efficient and universally covering as Singapore -- where 80% of the hospital beds are owned and operated by the government, and the bulk of healthcare money goes through government hands before it is payed out to providers public or private. Like Singapore has done, we would first have to shrink private providers to the roles that they seem to be good at and let the government take over a majority of hospitals. We would also have -- once again like is done by, very successful, Singapore -- to setup multiple levels of government savings and payment programs that are mandatory before one can be eligible to buy private insurance.

    Also, the government layer is necessary to regulate/manage the healthcare market and assure that the private firms are playing by the rules.

  • On 21 Nov 2013 in Cost is top health problem for Americans, leo707 said:

    debyne, I am for free markets and competition, many industries benefit from these. (However, I think that we agree that there is a need to regulate a free market to insure that it stays free) Hell, we could talk about a lot of industries and agree on how competition and free markets benefit them.

    I just don't see healthcare being an industry that benefits from the free market approach. A limited degree of free market -- like is used in Singapore -- sure...but not almost entirely run through private free market interests.

    I also don't think services like police, fire, etc. should be free market either.

    I am not sure how you reconcile the fact that every other industrialized nation runs their healthcare entirely or almost entirely as a single-payer government run program. Without exception everyone of these government run programs costs much less and has better results than our healthcare system dictated by private companies. Private industry has certainly not made healthcare in the US efficient.

  • On 21 Nov 2013 in Cost is top health problem for Americans, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    If insurance companies don't do it, who will? A slow, expensive monopoly like the government?

    Slow expensive monopolys are not the exclusive providence of governments.

    Let us not mistake our system of private insurance companies and healthcare providers for something that in any way resembles free market competition.

    debyne says

    That's the beauty of competition...major portions of any profits that a company makes in a competitive marketplace have to be reinvested into making the company produce results more efficiently and effectively.

    Private firms are not motivated to produce widgets efficiently and effectively, they are motivated by profit. Yes, at times profit it helped by in creasing efficiency, but often times large amounts of profits are gained through other means. The private US healthcare system is a prime example of greater profits through inefficiency and poor product quality.

  • On 21 Nov 2013 in Cost is top health problem for Americans, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    Their costs are lower for entirely different reasons. For example, they don't do fee-for-service, they don't have the tort issues we have, they perform more medical services outside of expensive hospitals, etc.

    So, what you are telling me is that the government run healthcare systems that every other industrial nation in the world enjoys have been able to develop methods that lower the cost of healthcare -- while maintaining a high level results -- without major action from private "free market" companies?

  • On 21 Nov 2013 in Cost is top health problem for Americans, leo707 said:

    debyne says

    Because insurance companies can perform all of the claims adjudication, quality and utilization reviews, etc. much more efficiently and effectively than the government, who has zero motivation to be efficient.

    Why then do other countries where the government does the bulk of the claims adjudication, etc. spend at least half of what we do on healthcare? And to boot the US has some of the worst healthcare results in the industrialized world.

    Perhaps the private insurance companies are more efficient, but keep for themselves any of the savings due to increased efficiency, plus their 100% vig of course.

    So, then what is the point to our having insurance companies doing everything?

  • On 18 Nov 2013 in He's Back and He's Bad... Zimmerman Part 2: Bitch Regulator, leo707 said:

    Quigley says

    Ship him to Oakland

    Please don't.

    Other Pnet forum members (at least one that I remember) have stated that they would like having a someone like Zimmerman in their neighborhood. I believe that now is the time for them to step up to the plate and offer Zimmerman a place to stay.

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    So we now agree, Wilson told a "white" lie....??

    Even assuming that the ends justifies the means, that does not change the nature of the ends.

    Lying about an endorsement is not equivalent as saying, "No, honey those pants don't make you look fat."

    I really don't know -- or really care much -- about Mr. Wilson or his predecessor. However, if he needed to be sleazy and lie in order to win it makes me wonder if he is any better than the person he is replacing. Sure Wilson's bullshit tricks to get elected are not a bad as Gavin Newsom's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's lies and deception, but it would be enough to put Wilson on my "never vote for" list.

    One would hope that Mr. Wilson's smug arrogance on the matter would be enough to ensure his political death, but when the likes of Gavin Newsom seem to be doing fine...

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    There is a reason that the phrase "Lie of omission" exists. If it was equal to a "lie", there would be no need for the phrase. It is used to distinguish a specific action that is very similar to a lie, but not a lie.

    No, "of omission" is a descriptor identifying the type of lie. You know, like a "little white" is another type of lie descriptor.

    Not all lies are "of omission", but all "lies of omission" are lies. Kind of like not all whiskey is a bourbon, but all bourbons are whiskey.

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    It was not a false statement. THat is required in your definitions below.

    Therefore it was not a lie.

    Oh, good god...

    ...don't worry you are not the first person I have encountered on Pnet that does not understand how to interpret a dictionary definition. Yes, it always seems to be a right-winger that does not want to face whatever morally repugnant position they have come to hold dear, and they seek to redefine it with truthiness rather than what is commonly accepted by all rational thinking English speakers.

    Let me give you two basic tips:

    1. A single synonym is not equal to the word in which it is used to define. So, while "falsehood" and "falsification" are used to help us understand the word "lie" they do not equal "lie", and are not "required" to be in the definition (more on that in #2).

    Some even say that even while there are synonyms each word is unique in definition.

    2. A semicolon has been known as "the most feared punctuation on earth", but what is important for you to know is that it is used to separate two independent clauses.

    "6.54 Use of the semicolon

    In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would.

    She spent much of her free time immersed in the ocean; no mere water-resistant watch would do.

    [A poor] writer, [SoftShell] has never bothered to master the semicolon; he insists that half a colon is no colon at all.
    "
    -The Chicago Manual of Style Online

    As you can see from the examples in the Chicago Manual statements separated by a semicolon are -- while closely related -- independent of each other, and that each statement can stand alone and still be true.

    If you are still having difficulty understanding the very basics of how a semicolon operates this should help dumb things down a bit:
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

    EXERCISE:
    Read the definition and each time you get to a semicolon stop! reading. Think to yourself what I just read stands alone as true.

    Soooooo..., when a definition starts...

    "1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" then there is a semicolon ----> ; that means that the following statement(s) are not "required" for the first statement to be true.

    Yes, Dave Wilson's intent was to deliberately deceive voters into thinking that Ron Wilson the former state representative was who was endorsing him, and not his cousin.

    For whatever reason you seem to desperately want to believe that this was not a lie -- even to the point of making yourself appear foolish and ignorant to how the English language works --, but anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language understands it as a lie.

    One, question...are you smarter than a fifth-grader?

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    So all the hubbub over the OP is just a 'same old same old' situation, not worthy of discussion.

    Well...all lies are not created equal, but yeah in the grand scheme of things is this really worth national discussion? I don't know. I doubt he wins his next election.

    Personally I think that fraudulently claiming an endorsement is the worse lie.

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    Having said that, what politician exists who has not told a "lie of omission"??

    Hmmmm...my guess at that number would be zero. Well...perhaps there are some, but they never win elections so do they really count as politicians?

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    It is not the classical definition of a "lie".

    ? WTF are you talking about? of course it is part of the "classical" definition of a "lie."

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t
    lie
    1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.

    A lie of omission is indeed made with the deliberate intent to deceive. Anyone who thinks that publishing his cousins' "endorsement" was not an intentional attempt at deception is bat-shit crazy.

  • On 13 Nov 2013 in White candidate pretends to be black to win election, leo707 said:

    SoftShell says

    Yes, I did win the argument,

    The argument about the lie told concerning the endorsement? If being completely incorrect = a win, then yes you "won."

    I realize that as a "conservative," your moral and ethical compass has been completely fucked up by prostrating yourself before the right-wing lies and the lying liars that tell them.

    However, that does not change the fact that a lie by omission is still a lie. If you can't see that, then...well...then I am not surprised.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 3416 milliseconds to create.