Jump to content

hornhorn

banned
  • Posts

    618
  • Joined

Posts posted by hornhorn

  1. Just now, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, you see, IF Obama had done those things that @hornhorn suggested he did, then Obama lovers would have defended him.  Ergo, both sides!

    Right, so if Pentagon kills Soleimani in 2020, Trump did it. But if Pentagon drops depleted Uranium in 2015, its Pentagon and not Obama. 

    Since hornhorn wasn't in the room he has no proof. Got him!!!

    • Fuck You 32
  2. 2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

     

    So, neither can you say that he ordered its use nor can you say he apologized for it. Then, you provide a link to an opinion with no supporting links that he was responsible for stonewalling an investigation into the use of DU.

    Meanwhile, this thread is about what Trump is doing today. Got it.

    Phase One: Distract.

    Phase Two: Deny.

    Phase Three: Defend.

    Phase one partially accomplished.

    Oh Trump is totally at fault for whatever you're accusing him of doing. No distractions there, his faults are his faults. 

    But I suppose if he doesn't apologize for it like Obama, he didn't do it either. Gotcha!

    • Fuck You 16
  3. 1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    So I guess we don't have a problem with the depleted uranium munitions used by the Bushes?

    Of course we do, he did it way worse with hundreds of thousands of rounds being dropped vs only 5000 rounds by Obama. 

    If this was an overwhelmingly pro W board I'd bring that up. 

    • Fuck You 10
  4. 23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    I'd like more information on this, because it just might change my opinion on Obama. I've found the FP story talking about its use against a fuel convoy in the deserts of eastern Syria against previous promises by CENTCOM not to use it, but I've yet to find anything saying that Obama either a) knew beforehand about its use or b) that he apologized for having ordered it.

    Please & thanks.

    If nothing, his admin at least stonewalled more inquiry into it. Here ya go: http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/obama-administration-stonewalls-inquiry-into-radioactive-weapon-use-in-iraq-130309?news=849366

    And the fact that there is very limited information available on it should tell you all you need to make an assessment on our media. But watch them go crazy over Donny calling Rosie fat. 

    • Fuck You 11
  5. 9 minutes ago, ryskey said:

     You're a drama queen.

    https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/more-on-depleted-uranium/

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) continues to review the latest information in scientific literature on the effects on humans of internal exposure due to inhalation or ingestion of uranium, including DU. UNSCEAR has concluded that no clinically significant pathology related to radiation exposure to depleted uranium was found (See A/71/139).

    In studies in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was involved, the resulting radiological risk to the public and the environment was not significant in situations where depleted uranium is observed in the form of localized contamination of the environment by small particles resulting from the impacts.

    However, in the situations where fragments of, or complete, depleted uranium ammunitions were found, there is a potential risk of radiation effects for individuals who come into direct contact with such fragments or ammunitions.

    This risk can be mitigated by national authorities through conducting such simple countermeasures as the collection, storage and disposal of such fragments.

    Nevertheless, in a post-conflict environment, the presence of depleted uranium residues can further increase the anxiety of local populations. The results of the radiological assessments conducted by IAEA in cooperation with UNEP and WHO provide the basis for public reassurance.

     

    No one lives where those rounds were used.  Should they have been used?  Probably not.  Egregious military and foreign policy blunder as bad as a complete misunderstanding of the Post-WWII military-economic order?

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/

    Image result for population density of syria

    Like I said, watch them cover their ears and eyes and defend their cult hero. Whoever it may be, Trump or Obama. Isn't it why we dropped it, because its uh harmless. 

    Whether or not DU causes cancer is a popular question in the public media and controversial in the scientific literature. While the radioactivity of DU is low, it is not absent. It has been pointed out [41] that if even a little as 1−2% of the 300 tons of DU used in the Gulf War were converted to respirable dust it would produce three to six million grams of DU dust. Using the figures provided by Durakovic this would release 1.16 million to 2.32 million Ci of radiation, a measure that would exceed the New York state safety levels for monthly release of 150Ci by a factor of 7,733 to 15,467. However, it is unlikely that this amount would be inhaled or ingested by a population, most of it would probably end up in the soil or diluted by the wind. Nonetheless, these figures suggest that it may not be prudent to completely ignore radiation risks from DU.

    Human studies examining the carcinogenic potential of DU are limited but suggestive. Evidence of potential carcinogenic effects include suggestions of an increase in cervical carcinomas in Yugoslavia [42,43] and increases in micronuclei formation in subjects from the Bosnia/Herzegovina region [44]. There are also indications of hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase (HPRT) mutation in some Gulf War veterans [40] as well as chromosomal aberrations in a German study group [45]. Two studies have found suggestive chromosomal aberrations in workers exposed to DU [46,47].

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/

    • Fuck You 12
  6. 5 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

    I just don't understand how his defenders are able to lie, lie, lie and constantly cover for their lies when the story changes in front of the public, in front of cameras every fucking day and not feel some sort of anxiety or heart-ache. Do these people not have souls? I lie to my wife once about some trivial shit and I start sweating. How is it these sycophants do this literally every day of this monster's presidency and never go into a nervous tick just once? You really have to be an evil person to partake in this level of dishonesty and not even blink. 

    This is what supporters and fanatics do. Here, let's do a test real quick and watch you and other Obama supporters defend him. 

    Did you know Obama dropped depleted Uranium on Syrians sentencing generations to cancer, malformed babies etc.? And then apologized for it because we as a nation had decided not to do so after we did that in 2003. This is arguably as bad or worse than anything Trump has ever done. Does that change your opinion of Obama?

    • Fuck You 11
  7. 30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    .....and.....it was entirely predictable, because that's his entire fucking M.O.   Step 1) start fire.  Step 2) put out fire.  Step 3) whine and cry about how nobody will recognize him for being the BEST FIREFIGHTER EVER for putting out the same goddamned fire that he started in the first place.

    This was never about the farmers, they just happened to be collateral damage. Trump had to fix this problem before the election to confirm their votes, which he did and hence the trade war deal was broken into phases. He had to give up absolutely nothing to China in return to receive this. 

    This has always been about IP protection so tariffs continue until US companies get it and China can show that they can implement IP protection. 

    Him taking a victory lap is akin to Pelosi taking a victory lap on House impeachment, it means nothing. 

    • Fuck You 1
  8. Just now, immamac said:

    My god - it's almost like we had a good conversation

    Right? If you notice my posts initially have been nothing but Math or asking questions met with fuck you, this is a Dem thread, GTFO you GOP supporter. 

    I had similar questions in 2015 when Trump suggested cutting taxes. Met with similar responses.

     

    • Like 1
  9. 3 minutes ago, immamac said:

    the transition plan is whats FUBAR and makes #3 seems insane and stupid - I also think that's the reason M4ALL is going to fail, it's not because after it's up and running it will suck, it's because the transition to get there will be so expensive and painful people are just not willing to do it. 

    I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your post either - I was just saying that logically the argument should be presented a bit differently from a conceptual and practical level. 

    I personally wouldn't vote for M4ALL as it is, but I do believe that localized regional single payer type systems and a broader national single payer type system need to exist in tandem to achieve what the american public needs for healthcare and there's a way to do that while being inclusive of the privatized healthcare system (insurance, pharma, facilities, etc). I'm actually OK with healthcare being more expensive in the USA as you said it's the leader in many medical advances. However it can't be an unlimited money grab, people will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive it's not like any other situation available in business. I think well thought out policies that limit profit or mandate investment can potentially be a solution, but thats extremely difficult to actually put into practice.

    I don't disagree with any of your points either. Who wouldn't love for healthcare to be possible for all too but not currently as they are packaging it. 

    They want the UK system without the UK taxes on the middle class and poor. 

  10. 2 minutes ago, immamac said:
     

    preventative care and well managed medical conditions are so much fucking cheaper than paying for catastrophic care. This isn't even specific to medical usecases, it applies to many many industries.

    I don't understand why people aren't talking about this part of it more - most of the bills that everyone is griping and bitching about are things that in large part are significantly reduced by proper preventative and active care if it was affordable. Unfortunately for many it's not affordable for them to BE healthy, so they are unhealthy until they are DYING then they go seek medical care.

    LOL despite being one of the worst possible analogies to make (I know it's not your original analogy) this is a horrible take. I think the one logical fallacy trap that most people who discuss this topic fall into is they aren't arguing the correct premise.

    1) Privatized healthcare is not what you are claiming it is - it's a profit machine the sole outcome that is being pursued by all non individuals in the system is profitability. It IS NOT a private industry funded by private citizens who get everything they pay for back. It would actually be closer to private citizens paying for toll roads and then getting fucked into paying a monthly subscription for the privilege to use them and a per use fee when they do exercise their privilege. All those subscription fees and per use fees also aren't profit sharing and don't necessarily fund improvements to said road. They go into a small groups pockets.

    2) Healthy citizens don't necessarily equate to more profit - even in the insurance scenarios. While preventative care and ongoing treatment in the long term is cheaper in the terms of profitability it eats into how much is going out of the bank. So if a road in the cold harsh midwest needs a coating applied to it every 4 weeks so that it doesn't fall apart after a big freeze vs fixing a tract of the road that catastrophically fails. Overall it will be cheaper to fix the small patch of road when it catastrophically fails, however the rest of the road is still at risk of also catastrophically failing. Instead of limiting the amount of those catastrophes you just use statistics to maximize the profit formula. 

    3) Public healthcare is also not what you are claiming it is - it is designed to provide full medical coverage (including drug development and disbursement) with a balanced budget. That doesn't mean unfair and low wages for Doctors, facilities, drug makers etc. That means that there's only a certain pool of money available and people get paid according to the funds that are available instead of arbitrary numbers decided by premiums (again mainly driven by profitable scenarios). You know the cool thing about being profitable? you can dip into a cash reserve and then charge back for it to make that money back. In a balanced budget you can't just have the costs ever rising for no reason other than profitability so there's less incentive for people who are driven strictly by dollars to provide care.

    4) Healthy/Unhealthy citizen balance presents an issue in macro economic Public healthcare because it's difficult to run a balanced budget based on largely unknown factors.  The most predictable and best way to give healthcare to EVERYONE is to provide services and drugs designed to keep the EXPENSIVE stuff from happening. The downside is that when the expensive stuff does happen - it's often delivered in a cost conscious way (which means less doctors, facilities, etc etc - which means "longer time to get care" or "lines") 

    The argument that the system isn't broken is fucking fundamentally unsound. It's absolutely broken - it's not even pretending to serve the needs of the people who pay into it.

    Like you said, not my analogy. I just played along.

    1. Agreed.

    2. Agreed.

    3. Uh what? Balance budget? We don't even know what the costs are going to be within tens of billions of dollars in ball park over a span of a decade. So how do you know how you're going to have cash reserves? I suppose you've never worked with public institutions that use federal dollars. For instance when public clinics that offer HIV treatment on Ryan White funding have X amount of dollars available at the end of the year, they test patients on tests that are not needed so they use up all their funds. If they don't then their funding gets decreased by that amount next year. You can bet your house that anything that the govt spends money on is going to have more inefficiencies than one can imagine. So please stop with this drivel.

    The system is meh at best. But the problem is that the solution you're proposing is more expensive, worse experience and we haven't even discussed the possible disappearance of discoveries due to absence of a profit motive. There's a reason why America files for more medical patents than rest of the world combined.  But that's an unknown and unlike you I won't make claims about an unknown as a certainty that it will disappear. 

  11. 6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Imagine the first guy that came up with the idea to use tax dollars to build roads.  If some of you people back then were the majority we’d be traveling on dirt paths today and foraging for groceries because the sticker shock of the cost of roads would have been out of the question.

    But its remotely not the same. Did we have private roads that citizens paid for? Did that guy ask those citizens to stop paying for those private roads and direct that payment to govt instead in a promise that it will cost the same and will be of similar quality without really knowing if its going to be? Did we have models of govt build roads in other countries that had more traffic and congestion because they didn't have enough lanes as opposed to our privately built roads? 

    And most importantly, did that person say that he has no idea how much it would cost or how wide or how many lanes or interstates or streets they would have but we should dump the private model because some cannot use it? 

     

  12. 1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

    I see today is one of those random days where Republicans and Trump voters pretend they care about fiscal responsibility.

    Because you think giving tax cuts of $100 billion dollars/year = spending $3.2 trillion/year. Your math as usual is off, by about 32 times.

  13. 3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    The more nuanced part is that employees with really good private health insurance probably don't appreciate how much their employers subsidize the cost for them.   For example, I'm a partner at a law firm.  Employees making less than $75K/year pay $542 per month for the same EXACT insurance coverage that I pay $1912 for a month.   I'm not bitching about that, I think it's completely fair, but stating it as a fact as I doubt the staff actually realize the premiums they are paying for good health insurance is not representative of the actual cost.   So I 100% agree that if M4A is ever implemented, many employed middle class Americans will receive significantly worse medical service.  Hell, you have already seen the influx of concierge practices from doctors not wanting to deal with Medicare in the current structure.  There is absolutely already a "first class" of medicine out there most don't have access to.   

    But M4A would absolutely result in a significantly enhanced multi-tier medical services structure.   Presumably it wouldn't impact me or my family as I already pay "more" and would continue to do so under whatever upper tier developed under the new system.  Hell, I might even come out ahead stripping it out of the current arrangement depending on how much taxes increase.  But your analogy that many that are currently riding in "coach" would be forced to drop down to "Greyhound premium" is dead on and I wonder how many employed, middle class supporters of M4A appreciate that.

    And that's exactly the point, M4ALL supporters don't really know how much will it cost, or how will it be implemented or how they will tier it or how it will impact the people that already have healthcare or how we will find jobs for those hundreds of thousands of employees that work in reimbursement that are now unemployed but they want it and they want it now!

    They sound like JG Wentworth commercials.

  14. 2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Make an actual case. You toss out narrow facts and then expect me to remain in your phony lane. 

    How does the fact that 60 of the most profitable companies in the US didn't pay corporate tax impact your view that you've chosen to base on Amazon and the amount rather than the percentage Apple pays?

    I'll not bother with you until you have generated some substance. So far you've muffed an insult by comparing me to AOC and now you toss out something called 'vox' in attachment to me which I know nothing of. Do I feel good about that or bad about that? What is your aim other than distraction?

    Or are you so low-level in your sophistry that you must imagine me to be a stereotype described to you by voices on the radio in order to feel that, no matter what, you are right and good while I am a poor misguided libtard hiding an agenda under my cloak as I hate America?

    Until you write something of substance, have a nice day.

    I didn't bring up the companies, you did. Apple paid their income taxes, so we'll leave them well alone. 

    To talk about this intelligently we have to be specific, since YOU were the one complaining about them I ask do you know why Amazon's tax bill was zero? 

    I'll wait.

  15. 3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Hmmm. First, you reveal much by assuming that evoking AOC will be found generally insulting. It's not. She has a much keener mind for these things than I do.

    Next, your statistics all speak in general fractions of what is paid without the context of what percentage of the wealth of your poor victims are being taxed.

    You name Apple who has indeed paid taxes. They cheat, but the do pay. 15% rate for the Forbes #1. Horribly exorbitant.

    I wonder why you chose Apple? Oh, here's a possible reason:

     

    60 of America's biggest companies paid no federal income tax in 2018 (CBS News).

    So, yea, I'll take the comparison to AOC. You can carry on being a GOP/Rush vomit-eating shill for the poor victims like the top 1% and the Forbes 500 whom you defend through half-lies and lame sophistry.

    I'm sure you'll embrace these facts and context to reach new conclusions. I sure you won't continue to spew narrow slices of data to support rhetoric that doesn't stand up to analysis.

    Now run along, amateur operative. Maybe you'll stumble into your integrity.

    Let's talk specifics, do you know why Amazon didn't have a tax bill? 

    And Apple did pay every single penny in taxes for their US earned income. Why should they have to pay taxes on income earned in foreign countries that are kept in foreign countries? 

    Look into it, maybe you'll learn something instead of parroting what you read on vox.com.

  16. 3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

    Bear with me as I present an analogy that I can see M4A being like and what we should prepare for, for a successful model. Think of it like an Amusement Park (again, bear with me):

    M4A means that the US Govt pays your admission to the amusement park where the amusement park is a metaphor for general healthcare. Everyone gets in, those are the table stakes for M4A.

    Now, because there is no longer a barrier to entry and because new rides take time to be built and tested for safety, there is a back-up in lines and you must wait a bit longer for the privilege of going on a ride, whereas a ride is a metaphor for a specific service or specialty under the general healthcare umbrella.

    Then we should give the citizens of the amusement park the ability to use one or two given Flash Pass or Fast Pass to get in an expedited line. After that, you can buy more VIP passes or Fast passes to your heart's content and your threshold for wallet pain.

    Is that such a bad model? Or is that what Pete is saying we should do and people think it's trash?

    But here's the problem. To get into that amusement park.

    Currently:

    Guy A gets to pay $2,000/month in insurance and another $80,000/year in taxes. No lines.

    Guy B pays nothing for insurance and pays $1200/year in taxes. Can't get in.

    With M4ALL:

    Guy A gets to pay $2,000/month in insurance and another $95,000/year in taxes. His children when sick wait in a line. He sees them suffering everyday when he didn't during prior system. 

    Guy B pays nothing for insurance and pay $1,500/year in taxes. He waits in line just like Guy A does. 

     

    Tell me why Guy A is going to get on board. If it was just himself think Guy A would be OK, but if its his kids vs. ANYONE else its a no brainer he picks the older system. He's doing everything right, paying for insurance, paying his taxes then why should his children suffer? 

    • Like 1
  17. 3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Yea. The ones reaping the greatest benefits of a system they largely control actually have to pay a percentage of the wealth they gain and protect back to the system. Oh, and maybe the money they keep in their corporations will have to be taxed, too.  I weep at the tragedy of it all.

    I know they spend all day thinking of ways to Make America Great Again and providing the not-illusory-trickle of wealth down to the peons, but they'll have to actually contribute a little more.

    Poor, heroic top 1%. Maybe they can shift some of the money they pay to PACs, politicians, and pedophile distributors to cover the bill.

    The greediest part of that class are what made the GOP the GOP it is. The generous part of that class pay their taxes with no more complaint than the rest of us and then go out and find other ways to do good with their wealth.

    Fuck the greedy part of that 1%. The more you learn about them, the more you find that they should be in jail.

    Now go to a default class warfare argument, irony-deaf motherfuckers. It's actually class retaliation as the war on the poor and middle class has been going on ever since the progressive tax was introduced.

     

    You sound like AOC just threw up on surly. 

    You think corporations didn't or don't pay taxes? Apple in 2015 paid half of the amount in corporate taxes that Bottom fifty percent of ALL Americans put together. 

    You're the one gunning for THEIR money and they're the greedy ones? 

    And y u mad bro? Its already Wednesday, two more days. 

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...