Money for RichClem


RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
16 Jan 2014, 5:56 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Cannonpointer » 16 Jan 2014 4:49 pm wrote:
RichClem » 16 Jan 2014 4:36 pm wrote:
How do you know I made it up?

How do you know it's false?

No, it isn't "total BS," because I have sourced it many times, to the deafening silence of liberals.

And how typical in what's supposed to be a non-trollish debate board, you'd make a false accusation against me without any shred of evidence, based solely on your ignorance. :\


How far do you think your, "I used to source stuff" crap is going to get you, gasbag? Shut me up - I dare you. LINK US TO WHERE YOU EVER SOURCED THIS CLAIM.

Gasbag.


Oh my, such nasty language.

I've sourced it countless times, every time ignored by your and your friends.


I decline to waste my time again today.

Google is your friend. Use it.
1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
17 Jan 2014, 8:58 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
danobivins » 17 Jan 2014 7:52 pm wrote:
This is what happens in the absence of govt regulation and oversight.


This general area of business is highly regulated and supposedly well overseen.

Not that reality ever gets in the way of moonbats' way.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
18 Jan 2014, 4:09 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2014 3:03 pm wrote:
RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:07 pm wrote:
Sorry, I do not accept your babbling. You haven't debunked anything. I was there at the time. I recall the MSM doing its best to destroy him.


So, we have gone from the MSM had 100% negative reportage for the year of 1994, to the MSM had 100% negative reportage for several moths in 1994, to "I remember them being out to get him." Okay, got it.

As I pointed out, and will again: THE MAN WAS A LIGHTENING ROD - an you are complaining about....

LIGHTENING.


Lightening? We aren't talking about his weight.

But you're wrong, because he wasn't "Gingrich" in the sense that he had much of a history of supposedly inflammatory statements. He was a back bencher, and the press barely knew who he was.

Any other empty excuses you'd like to offer?

RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:07 pm wrote:
I recall Meg Greenfield warning journalists in a column that they were hurting themselves.

And I recall conservative publications complaining about that coverage.


That doesn't sound negative against him. So he had defenders in the MSM? Interesting.

She wasn't defending him. She was defending the MSM's reputation.

RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:07 pm wrote:
Utter bulls***. He not only led Repubs to take over the House for the first time in something like 40 years, he got most of the Contract with America passed, including historic Welfare Reform.


Red herring. I never said he didn't.


Then as I noted, he was an accomplished, talented person untainted by any scandals.

When is the last time the MSM gave a liberal Democrat similarly horrific coverage?

Having a problem answering that question? :rofl:
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
18 Jan 2014, 5:48 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2014 4:27 pm wrote:
RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 4:23 pm wrote:
Great job at refusing to answer my question about Gingrich.

And foolishly citing Clinton, who the MSM adored and protected. :\


Whatever, son. I'm don with you on this topic. A real man would have put his engines in reverse a long time ago. You have no dignity.


Okay, glad we straightened all this out.

You're just another lying leftist psychotic full of hot air. :\
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
19 Jan 2014, 11:40 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Anyone remember liberals' demands for civility?

Just another dishonest club to use against conservatives.

They drop their standards like a hot rock when they attack our side.

Top Kentucky Democrat Compares Beating McConnell in 2014 to Liberating Europe From Nazis
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ating-euro
1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
17 Jan 2014, 7:33 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Jan 2014 1:20 pm wrote:
RichClem » 17 Jan 2014 12:45 pm wrote:
I'm supposed to respond to the ridiculous claim that I "lobby for open sewers and tent cities, you pig?"

Without quoting a single word I've written about open sewers or tent cities?

:rofl:


Yes. You do have to respond to it. You would have welfare ripped out from under people without a how do you do. If not, you have never expressed what plan you advocate.


I would rip welfare out from under people! :huh:


Or you don't have a clue what my opinion is. :rofl:

I try not to respond to the mentally ill.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
20 Jan 2014, 9:57 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
As the much-hated WSJ and other conservative publications have pointed out, alternative energy is not even close to being financially viable.

Meaning massive amounts of government money is spent to support it, and countries are vulnerable to energy shortages.

It threatens their economic vitality, if not threatens their collapse.

Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 43664.html
1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
21 Jan 2014, 4:24 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
skews13 » 21 Jan 2014 2:26 pm wrote:
Obama's Diplomacy Wins As Iran Keeps Up Their Paart Of The Nuclear Deal


How do you know they're not cheating, troll?

Never mind that it's only been days. They have plenty of time left to cheat, and the agreement bought almost nothing for our side.

One expects warmongering from Republicans serving Israel’s interests over their own country, but not from 16 Senate Democrats who are either pandering for the Jewish vote, hate the idea of diplomacy, or love the idea of America at war putting them in the same category as warmongering Republicans.


Oh yeah, 60 or so Senators including 16 Dems are selling out their country, sure, right. :rofl:

Moonbat.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
21 Jan 2014, 3:49 pm

Post 21 Jan 2014, 3:49 pm
RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Misty » 21 Jan 2014 2:44 pm wrote:
RichClem » 21 Jan 2014 2:40 pm wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thDUKsN59PU


Gosh, you're terrified to actually address facts. :huh:

Worst recovery in 80 years.

Plummeting income.

12% real unemployment.

$1 trillion annual deficits.

2 million jobs behind pre-recession levels.

8 million jobs behind the average recovery.

$7 1/2 trillion and still counting in higher debt.

$300,000 per job "created."

A collapsing "train wreck" of a health care plan.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
21 Jan 2014, 11:07 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
This strikes me as a curiousity. O'Donnell was indicted on federal charges for, so far, giving nothing except publicity to a company and its products.

No state contract.

No state funding.

No appointments.

Not a penny out of taxpayers' pockets.

Prosecutors contend that the then-first couple arranged access for Williams to top state officials, allowed the historic governor’s mansion to be used for a launch party for a company pill not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and attended Star events designed to boost the company’s prestige, particularly with university researchers with whom the company was trying to build credibility.....

If convicted of the charges, the couple could face a maximum of 30 years in prison


For publicity stunts?

Unless more details emerge, this strikes me as extremely suspicious.

Since when are politicians indicted for simply helping give publicity to someone's product?
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
22 Jan 2014, 11:25 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2014 6:42 pm wrote:
You forget that your Heritage link is open to ALL, dullard. The "freedom" which you worship is mostly ECONOMIC freedom, brought about by the LOW TAXES made possible by the sovereign wealth fund you so recently defended - until defending it became inconvenient. At that point, you about-faced, and now you try to paint your inconstancy as being "selective." You have been all over the board, first denying the size of the fund, then trying to obscure its proportion to the economy by pretending overseas customers don't count in Singapore's economy, and finally disavowing the fund altogether, WHILE pretending that all of the good it brings to that nation, comes from the freaking EASTER BUNNY.

You're a light-in-the-loafers, two-faced, Koolaid spewing hack.


Obviously, I cannot get the simplest of points through to you.


We're done. Have a nice life! :\
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
23 Jan 2014, 4:54 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Misty » 23 Jan 2014 3:40 pm wrote:
RichClem » 22 Jan 2014 5:03 pm wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the question I asked in the thread.
As usual.


They very well may have gotten away with it if it couldn't be proven in court that the CEO of Star Scientific got any benefit from them, but once they lied and tried to obstruct the investigation, it's game over.


Gotten away with what, troll?

Giving free publicity?

Further, if the Post headline is correct, they shouldn't have been indicted on any gifts charges.

Experts: Prosecution faces high bar in proving McDonnell committed


The rule of prosecution is, if you don't have a very high probability of conviction, you don't indict.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
23 Dec 2013, 3:35 pm

Post 23 Dec 2013, 3:35 pm
RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
skews13 » 23 Dec 2013 1:28 pm wrote:
Posts like this one are very satisfying to me. It show's how effective of a poster I am. When they're trying to kill you, it shows you're getting under their skin.


You, effective?

A hit-and-run spamming Obamabot? You're kidding, right? :rofl:

I stand for everything that's good and just in life. That's why I could never be a conservative.


It's "good and just" to grossly infringe on American's freedom against their will in order to empower Beltway politicians?

You must have a different dictionary than the rest of us. :\
1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 2:19 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
greatnpowerfuloz » 29 Jan 2014 5:48 pm wrote:
RichClem » 28 Jan 2014 4:42 pm wrote:
However you phrased it, it was hogwash. I've never, ever heard of anyone engaged in debate that facts and logic from opinion pieces are off limits.

The refuge of a coward.


Sole reliance on opinion pieces is the refuge of the lazy and brainwashed. Opinion pieces are not off limits but you cannot use them as the sum total of your argument. At some point you, or your opinionators, must provide more than rhetoric and talking points to support the opinion.

Your laundry list of dire stats lacks perspective and you have either refused or failed to provide any.

Worst recovery in 80 years. - Perspective:


I'll use whatever sound sources I like, and if you don't like it, I'll leave the room. Get bent.

Feel free to provide your own perspective to your own stats. Simply posting them up ad nauseum is lazy and will not be tolerated here.


"Uninformed?" I've read about Economics and related matters for almost 40 years. How about you?

So let me get this straight; the best minds on Economics in the country are off limits, but you're going offer your poorly informed perspective?

Come on, you're kidding, right? :rofl:
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 2:12 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
greatnpowerfuloz » 29 Jan 2014 5:07 pm wrote:
If you continue this pattern in here, Clem, first I'm going to start deleting your posts, then I'll ban you from this room.

If you want to start a thread based on an opinion piece and toss unsupported accusations into the arena, you had better be willing and able to back your crap up, when called upon.

This forum is for serious debate and your brand of shit has not risen to the required level.

If you can't abide by the structure and format here, stick with NHB.

This is not a threat. It's a warning.


I could care less. No one on this forum has the inclination or the ability to do first hand analysis of complex economic matters from raw data, and I have no intention of even trying. I can't get CP to comprehend basic facts and logic, let alone anything subtle and complex.

So you've effectively killed any change of moderately sophisticated, courteous debate.

Congrats. The room is now empty. :\
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 4:46 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
greatnpowerfuloz » 29 Jan 2014 5:07 pm wrote:
If you continue this pattern in here, Clem, first I'm going to start deleting your posts, then I'll ban you from this room.

If you want to start a thread based on an opinion piece and toss unsupported accusations into the arena, you had better be willing and able to back your crap up, when called upon.

This forum is for serious debate and your brand of shit has not risen to the required level.

If you can't abide by the structure and format here, stick with NHB.

This is not a threat. It's a warning.


So let me get this straight. It's unacceptable that I cite business/ Economics publications of the highest quality, but it's just fine for you to cite Psychology Today? :rofl:

And express your silly opinion?

greatnpowerfuloz » 18 Jan 2014 11:12 am wrote:
Signs that capitalism as we've known and understood it has been killed off, replaced by a mutant form which is failing. What will take its place has yet to be revealed.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201302/why-western-capitalism-has-failed-us
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
29 Jan 2014, 4:46 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Cannonpointer » 28 Jan 2014 6:29 am wrote:
RichClem » 28 Jan 2014 2:28 am wrote:
I plan to once I return home to my desk top and its resources.

But given that you reject all my sources out of hand on spurious grounds, what would be the point?

Facts aren't facts, if, snicker, they're contained in a column or oped.


No, son. I never said that.

Facts are not SOURCED if they are merely pasted from an opinion piece. They may or may not be facts - but they are not sourced.

There are facts, and there are opinions. You just need to learn to distinguish between the two.


An opinion piece contains that day's date. It states that the president of the US is Barrack Obama.

And that 2 plus 2 is four.

Are those facts, psycho?
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 4:46 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
greatnpowerfuloz » 29 Jan 2014 5:07 pm wrote:
If you continue this pattern in here, Clem, first I'm going to start deleting your posts, then I'll ban you from this room.

If you want to start a thread based on an opinion piece and toss unsupported accusations into the arena, you had better be willing and able to back your crap up, when called upon.

This forum is for serious debate and your brand of shit has not risen to the required level.

If you can't abide by the structure and format here, stick with NHB.

This is not a threat. It's a warning.


So let me get this straight. It's unacceptable that I cite business/ Economics publications of the highest quality, but it's just fine for you to cite Psychology Today? :rofl:

And express your silly opinion?

Just let me know. I'll be happy to leave the place basically vacant, and absolutely vacant of reasonably sound opinion. :\

greatnpowerfuloz » 18 Jan 2014 11:12 am wrote:
Signs that capitalism as we've known and understood it has been killed off, replaced by a mutant form which is failing. What will take its place has yet to be revealed.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201302/why-western-capitalism-has-failed-us
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 9:00 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Misty » 30 Jan 2014 7:21 pm wrote:
larryc12 » 30 Jan 2014 10:25 am wrote:
Your presumption does not a fact make. I am all in favor of BC pills, but you pay for them.


That proves what I just said.
Contraception should be a routine part of a woman's health care coverage.


Then they can go out and choose an insurance policy that covers it.

Wow, how difficult, right? :rofl:

But no, fascistic liberals must mandate by force of federal law that every American get that coverage, even if it violates Americans' Constitutional rights.
-1

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
30 Jan 2014, 9:16 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17321
Misty » 30 Jan 2014 7:34 pm wrote:
golfboy » 30 Jan 2014 7:26 pm wrote:
No one is stopping you from obtaining contraception meds or devices.
The problem is when you want someone who is morally opposed to contraception for religious reasons, to pay for your pills.
If you want it, YOU buy it. Problem solved.


For most of you right wingers, this has nothing to do with a moral opposition to BC.
Religious employers are already exempted from covering BC for their employees.



Bulls***. Everyone sees through that tiny fiig leaf, and not one single religious employer has dropped their lawsuit.

Again, I'm not asking anyone to pay for anyone's pills.
But health care policies purchased through the exchanges should include coverage for contraception.


More bulls***. Of course you're demanding that others pay, specifically employers and taxpayers.


Otherwise, Obamacare would mandate that every individual female buy contraceptives directly or as an add-on to their policies.

You fawning leftist liars spread every Democrat Talking Point Lie put out, with all the fake sincerity you can. :\
-1