Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Willis McGahee's Dentist

R.I.P. Recliner Pilot

Recommended Posts

After further thought this is turning out to be a good thing. The Republicans took back the House, added lots of Gov's, and gained in the Senate last night, which signals the demise of Obama in 2012 AND RP may have to go away too. It's a win-win-win situation. :first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the Republicans rallying to save their leader. How adorable. No one forced him to make the bet. He did. We have proof. Now he's gone. Too bad, so sad.

 

Maybe Drobeski, posty, KSB2424, etc. should have their own election to see who takes over as grand poobah big mouth Fox News repeater now that Recliner Pilot is history.

 

You would think most would just be fine with him gone...he added nothing to the GOP posters side...only made them look worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it means that much to Med. It's just another thing going on here that is amusing. People are having fun with it.

 

I agree. It's amusing. I just don't want to see it devolve to the same level it did with Newbie. At that point it just gets pathetic. It just seemed like people got really passionate about seeing Newbie leave. I didn't understand it.

 

Can we just call RP names and make fun of him without exiling him from this place?

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After further thought this is turning out to be a good thing. The Republicans took back the House, added lots of Gov's, and gained in the Senate last night, which signals the demise of Obama in 2012

 

Agreed... If things turn around in this country, Obama would probably be re-elected, but keeping the House and then possibly the Senate would work...

 

If things don't turn around, with over 20+ Democratic seats up for grabs in the Senate, I would guess that the Republicans could re-gain the Senate and maybe the White House...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you said this:

 

 

 

... immediately after I said Medstudent pwned MensaPilot.

 

 

 

I totally agree. My only rooting interest yesterday was against candidates like O'Donnell, who I think play to the absolute worst of the electorate.

 

You talk of trolling, while calling RP "MensaPilot". Who trolls again? :dunno:

 

I also wonder: why can you not civilly disagree with someone without calling names and reducing the conversation to nothing more useful than grunts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in fact gone for 3 months and the person I bet with never complained upon my return.

 

Hopefully RP has more integrity and never comes back here. :lol:

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he would have been toast if Angle was not such a nut. I felt a lot better about this bet after angle won her primary.

 

She's not a nut - that's just your confirmation bias/spin. She garnered a whole lot of the vote. It's far too easy to marginalize/character assassinate people these days. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk of trolling, while calling RP "MensaPilot". Who trolls again? :dunno:

 

I also wonder: why can you not civilly disagree with someone without calling names and reducing the conversation to nothing more useful than grunts?

You're here defending the worst culprit of namecalling in this board's history. Now he's gone. I would imagine the insult-rate will drop substantially. If namecalling bothered you as much as you pretend it does in your reply to MDC, you would be doing cartwheels about Recliner Pilot losing the bet and being gone forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not a nut - that's just your confirmation bias/spin.

 

Angle claimed that sharia law has taken over Dearborn, MI and Frankford, TX with no supporting evidence whatsoever. She opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. She has claimed that abortions cause breast cancer. She sponsored a bill to bring Scientology type massage and sauna therapy to prisons in AZ. She sponsored another one to remove the requirement for health insurers to cover mammograms and colonoscopies. She has claimed that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada.

 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not a nut - that's just your confirmation bias/spin. She garnered a whole lot of the vote. It's far too easy to marginalize/character assassinate people these days. <_<

 

"Take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States. But here you know what I'm talking about. You're paying for things you don't even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under autism. So that's a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave, I'm not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. So those are the things we want to get rid of."

 

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=28446&n=122

 

When she said autism, she framed it within air quotes.

 

Now what were you saying about confirmation bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=28446&n=122

 

When she said autism, she framed it within air quotes.

 

Now what were you saying about confirmation bias?

 

What does saying the word "autism" with air quotes have to do with claiming she's a "nut"? That' simply a personal attack that's thrown around so much, it's going to lose its meaning (itsatip: it already has - so many Dems call their opponents "nuts" :rolleyes:).

 

She used "air quotes" because of all the crap that is now covered under the guise of "autism" in insurance claims. Not just an actual diagnosis of autism.

 

As for the other stuff, she's declaring a personal opinion wrt breast cancer and abortion. It's an interesting opinion - have you or MDC done research to conclude that such a position is "nuts"?

 

Or is that just confirmation bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does saying the word "autism" with air quotes have to do with claiming she's a "nut"? That' simply a personal attack that's thrown around so much, it's going to lose its meaning (itsatip: it already has - so many Dems call their opponents "nuts" :rolleyes:).

 

She used "air quotes" because of all the crap that is now covered under the guise of "autism" in insurance claims. Not just an actual diagnosis of autism.

 

As for the other stuff, she's declaring a personal opinion wrt breast cancer and abortion. It's an interesting opinion - have you or MDC done research to conclude that such a position is "nuts"?

 

Or is that just confirmation bias?

 

I noticed you skipped over Angle's claim that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada. Was that just her "opinion". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does saying the word "autism" with air quotes have to do with claiming she's a "nut"? That' simply a personal attack that's thrown around so much, it's going to lose its meaning (itsatip: it already has - so many Dems call their opponents "nuts" :rolleyes:).

 

She used "air quotes" because of all the crap that is now covered under the guise of "autism" in insurance claims. Not just an actual diagnosis of autism.

 

As for the other stuff, she's declaring a personal opinion wrt breast cancer and abortion. It's an interesting opinion - have you or MDC done research to conclude that such a position is "nuts"?

 

Or is that just confirmation bias?

She was nuts-enough that even Reid could beat her. And regardless of your overall feelings on abortion, if anyone thinks they should be illegal even in rape cases, then they are, in fact, nuts. How can any sane person really believe a rape victim should then also be forced to have a baby. :wacko: Hey, at least she's not a witch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Hopefully this will get rid of Flahawker and drobeski as well, since they won't have any more threads to run into saying "yeah, what he said!"

Link to me ever running into anyone'e thread saying, "yeah, what he said!"

 

:waiting: :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was nuts-enough that ever Reid could beat her. And regardless of your overall feelings on abortion, if anyone thinks they should be illegal even in rape cases, then they are, in fact, nuts. How can any sane person really believe a rape victime should then also be forced to have a baby. :wacko: Hey, at least she's not a witch.

 

That doesnt make her nuts... A religious fanatic for sure, but not crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesnt make her nuts... A religious fanatic for sure, but not crazy.

I'm pretty sure that if it was your daughter who was raped and ended up pregnant, and someone told you that there's a new law passed that says she now has to have the baby, you'd agree that she was nuts, too. Religious or not, that is just assenine thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angle claimed that sharia law has taken over Dearborn, MI and Frankford, TX with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

I don't know much about this topic here, but this link sure contains a lot of information which may be the evidence you're looking for.

 

You may disagree - but that isn't valid ground to call her "nuts".

 

She opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

 

That is an absolutist position - and a totally rational one (my own position disagrees with this, but in a nuanced way: I actually believe that abortion is perfectly acceptable "until the blood moves" - which is a reference to about 14 days into gestation, when blood is created in the embryo/fetus). You may disagree, but if you start with the premise that an embryo becomes a person at conception - a concept with which I disagree - then you're principly bound to defend that innocent and individual life.

 

Again: a totally rational conclusion, considering that we do not at present possess the science with which to disagree. As such, this is merely an absolutist philosophical position.

 

But certainly not an insane one. My understanding is that Scott Walker - new Governor of Wisconsin - also holds this position. I voted for him.

 

She has claimed that abortions cause breast cancer.

 

Apparently, there are peer-reviewed studies on this. I did not know this, though it makes instinctive sense to me (hormonal imbalance/shunting caused by pregnancy termination, and the subsequent deleterious effects, etc). Apparently - also - this was discovered quite a while ago.

 

Remember, if you will, that abortion is an incredibly hot football, with political motivations on either side. If such a link truly exists, it would not surprise me that those in the positions of power - those sympathetic to abortion rights - would attempt to suppress it.

 

Do you have peer-reviewed studies which refute these findings? Or is this topic like MMGW? Either way, it is certainly not "nuts" to hold the opinion, based upon the informationwhich exists on the topic.

 

She sponsored a bill to bring Scientology type massage and sauna therapy to prisons in AZ.

 

Never heard of this. Research uncovers that there is more to this storythat you attempt to convey. It seems like she is open to pyschological therapies to rehabilitate prisoners, and reduce recidivism. I would think that the left would be in favor of that, considering that such a POV is generally leftist in nature. It sounds hypocritical to attack her for something like this.

 

I have no opinion, and she isn't pursuing it anymore regardless. Hardly nuts, though.

 

She sponsored another one to remove the requirement for health insurers to cover mammograms and colonoscopies.

 

I agree with this. What an insurer covers should not be mandated. You disagree, but that doesn't her - or you - nuts.

 

She has claimed that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada.

 

Interestingly, this claim was also repeated in the New York Times Editorial page. Are they nuts too...or just mistaken? Either way, there is more to this story as well.

 

Nothing about which makes her nuts. Sorry. Your character assassination is merely partisan sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was nuts-enough that even Reid could beat her. And regardless of your overall feelings on abortion, if anyone thinks they should be illegal even in rape cases, then they are, in fact, nuts. How can any sane person really believe a rape victim should then also be forced to have a baby. :wacko: Hey, at least she's not a witch.

 

I have to head out - but the rape/abortion position is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray. I'll cover it more later - it has to do with when abortion is actually acceptable, and when it is not.

 

For instance: deciding that a pregnancy due to rape should be terminated immediately: acceptable (chemically).

 

Lollygagging, and deciding later...say...the 2nd trimester? UNacceptable.

 

That's part of the nuance.

 

Just as a starter though, I'm curious about something: if you were the product of a rape, would you have wanted to be aborted, or would you want to have been considered an innocent individual who was not culpable for the circumstances of your creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She used "air quotes" because of all the crap that is now covered under the guise of "autism" in insurance claims. Not just an actual diagnosis of autism.

 

Or is that just confirmation bias?

 

Vice-Chair for the Commission on Autism in Nevada Ralph Toddre released this statement today:

 

"What Ms. Angle claims about AB 162 is false. The bill is very specific that the coverage is for autism spectrum disorders. It does not create a "cottage industry." It covers medically necessary treatment and evidence-based therapy, as well as the screening and diagnosis. It is autism specific. Legislators and advocates made sure of that. Read the bill! You don't condemn a bill that provides for medical coverage and treatment because you think it will become diluted! One in 110 children in this country is affected by autism. That is more than juvenile diabetes, HIV, and childhood cancers combined. All of those are covered by insurance. Why should autism be discriminated against by insurance companies?"

 

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=28446&n=122

 

You obviously have no clue about ASD. Otherwise you wouldn't refer to it as "autism".

 

But you're never wrong, and neither is any candidate who simply recites...."free market"..."smaller government"...."cut taxes".

 

Seriously, all she had to do is come off half way reasonable, and she cruises to the win. She didn't...and she lost. Not because of the media. Not because of the casinos. But because she had some controversial views. To deny this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was nuts-enough that even Reid could beat her. And regardless of your overall feelings on abortion, if anyone thinks they should be illegal even in rape cases, then they are, in fact, nuts. How can any sane person really believe a rape victim should then also be forced to have a baby. :wacko: Hey, at least she's not a witch.

It's not insane to believe that abortion ends a life. Although it may be insane to make abortion a crux for a vote. The election in Nevada ultimately had more to do with unions than positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about this topic here, but this link sure contains a lot of information which may be the evidence you're looking for.

 

You may disagree - but that isn't valid ground to call her "nuts".

 

 

 

That is an absolutist position - and a totally rational one (my own position disagrees with this, but in a nuanced way: I actually believe that abortion is perfectly acceptable "until the blood moves" - which is a reference to about 14 days into gestation, when blood is created in the embryo/fetus). You may disagree, but if you start with the premise that an embryo becomes a person at conception - a concept with which I disagree - then you're principly bound to defend that innocent and individual life.

 

Again: a totally rational conclusion, considering that we do not at present possess the science with which to disagree. As such, this is merely an absolutist philosophical position.

 

But certainly not an insane one. My understanding is that Scott Walker - new Governor of Wisconsin - also holds this position. I voted for him.

 

 

 

Apparently, there are peer-reviewed studies on this. I did not know this, though it makes instinctive sense to me (hormonal imbalance/shunting caused by pregnancy termination, and the subsequent deleterious effects, etc). Apparently - also - this was discovered quite a while ago.

 

Remember, if you will, that abortion is an incredibly hot football, with political motivations on either side. If such a link truly exists, it would not surprise me that those in the positions of power - those sympathetic to abortion rights - would attempt to suppress it.

 

Do you have peer-reviewed studies which refute these findings? Or is this topic like MMGW? Either way, it is certainly not "nuts" to hold the opinion, based upon the informationwhich exists on the topic.

 

 

 

Never heard of this. Research uncovers that there is more to this storythat you attempt to convey. It seems like she is open to pyschological therapies to rehabilitate prisoners, and reduce recidivism. I would think that the left would be in favor of that, considering that such a POV is generally leftist in nature. It sounds hypocritical to attack her for something like this.

 

I have no opinion, and she isn't pursuing it anymore regardless. Hardly nuts, though.

 

 

 

I agree with this. What an insurer covers should not be mandated. You disagree, but that doesn't her - or you - nuts.

 

 

 

Interestingly, this claim was also repeated in the New York Times Editorial page. Are they nuts too...or just mistaken? Either way, there is more to this story as well.

 

Nothing about which makes her nuts. Sorry. Your character assassination is merely partisan sophistry.

 

Have it your way, man. Apparently the voters in Arizona and Delaware can recognize a wingnut when they see one. I'm just relieved that the American public, despite their anger at Washington, aren't desperate enough to support fringe weirdos like Angle. :cheers:

 

BTW, World Net Daily? Really? Really? :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, there are peer-reviewed studies on this. I did not know this, though it makes instinctive sense to me (hormonal imbalance/shunting caused by pregnancy termination, and the subsequent deleterious effects, etc). Apparently - also - this was discovered quite a while ago.

 

They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage

 

And after peer review, they found no such link.

 

Maybe you should ask FrankM to explain to you how the peer review process works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to head out - but the rape/abortion position is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray. I'll cover it more later - it has to do with when abortion is actually acceptable, and when it is not.

 

For instance: deciding that a pregnancy due to rape should be terminated immediately: acceptable (chemically).

 

Lollygagging, and deciding later...say...the 2nd trimester? UNacceptable.

 

That's part of the nuance.

I agree with you here. But the nutjob doesn't. That's why she's a nutjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not a nut - that's just your confirmation bias/spin. She garnered a whole lot of the vote. It's far too easy to marginalize/character assassinate people these days. dry.gif

 

Before you get all high and mighty you should take a look in the mirror. Look at your own marginalization/character assassination of her opponent:

 

What a jack@ss. I despise this clown only a hair less than I despise Nasty Pelousy.

 

I think Sharron Angle is going to beat him.

http://www.fftodayfo...1

 

hopefully the link is not deleted by the conservative mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um I quoted Frank (hence the quotation marks), but thanks for playing genius :rolleyes:

 

I thought it was obvious that I was making a joke. My mistake was that I didn't take into account that you were educated if Florida. Seeing that I too was educated in Florida I should have known it would go over you head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was obvious that I was making a joke. My mistake was that I didn't take into account that you were educated if Florida. Seeing that I too was educated in Florida I should have known it would go over you head.

 

Reclin....I mean FlaHawker is just teste this morning. I wonder why? Anyway, cut him some slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. It's amusing. I just don't want to see it devolve to the same level it did with Newbie. At that point it just gets pathetic. It just seemed like people got really passionate about seeing Newbie leave. I didn't understand it.

 

Can we just call RP names and make fun of him without exiling him from this place?

 

:dunno:

 

He'll be back. The siren song of the Geek Bored is too strong for any mere mortal to resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=28446&n=122

 

You obviously have no clue about ASD. Otherwise you wouldn't refer to it as "autism".

 

I didn't refer to it as "autism", you did. Don't you remember the post you put up? I was explaining what she was doing. I'm not defending her - she may be mistaken, regardless of her position on that issue (and I don't really know) - I'm here to refute the ridiculous notion you libs love throwing out that she's (or any other opponent) is nuts.

 

But you're never wrong, and neither is any candidate who simply recites...."free market"..."smaller government"...."cut taxes".

 

Now what you are you bloviating about? My positions and ideology are detailed, and defensible. You must truly have a frail position if you need to always turn it into a personal attack about with whom you're debating.

 

Seriously, all she had to do is come off half way reasonable, and she cruises to the win.

 

Uh huh. She was being fully honest. Do you believe that it is better for a politician to lie about positions than it is to fully disclose, and have people be reasonable with their expectations? Those positions aren't ridiculous; we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

You're trying to shove me into a box with her, as if I have to agree with everything she said in order to defend against a charge of insanity.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

She didn't...and she lost. Not because of the media. Not because of the casinos. But because she had some controversial views. To deny this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

 

I never denied any of this - this is just another fabricated argument you're offering to attempt to win a debate point not being made. Why? Because you've lost the debate point that WAS made.

 

Deny it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was nuts-enough that even Reid could beat her.

 

This statement is equal parts overly simplistic and ridiculous. Reid has been around a very long time. Were all his opponents "nuts-enough"? The overly simplistic part totally ignores just how powerful the "get out the vote" machine in Nevada is, when partnered with casinos. Reid is the casinos' biatch, but the relationship is sickeningly symbiotic. Either way, it's capable of pulling off a massive voter effort.

 

Even with that, Angle did very well. She lost. She's not nuts. She holds opinions with which you disagree; even some surprising positions which could be considered minority held. Nuts, however, is a category reserved for the likes of very few people.

 

Do you think that Jerry Brown is nuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was obvious that I was making a joke. My mistake was that I didn't take into account that you were educated if Florida. Seeing that I too was educated in Florida I should have known it would go over you head.

1. Your post wasn't funny thus it wasn't "obvious" ITSATIP

 

2. By educated in Florida, I assume (because once again you are not being "clear") you mean high school. WRONG!

 

3. Once again, thanks for playing sparky! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reclin....I mean FlaHawker is just teste this morning. I wonder why? Anyway, cut him some slack.

Not an alias and not teste. In a great fockin mood!!!! :doublethumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is equal parts overly simplistic and ridiculous. Reid has been around a very long time. Were all his opponents "nuts-enough"? The overly simplistic part totally ignores just how powerful the "get out the vote" machine in Nevada is, when partnered with casinos. Reid is the casinos' biatch, but the relationship is sickeningly symbiotic. Either way, it's capable of pulling off a massive voter effort.

 

Even with that, Angle did very well. She lost. She's not nuts. She holds opinions with which you disagree; even some surprising positions which could be considered minority held. Nuts, however, is a category reserved for the likes of very few people.

 

Do you think that Jerry Brown is nuts?

 

Do you think Harry Reid is a clown just because he holds different views from you? Is he in the circus? I don't know how you can say its a bias view to call Sharron angle nuts when members of her own party were calling her that:

 

"I've watched Sharron Angle and she's nuts," said Reno Republican Richard Hill, who voted for Reid.

http://www.lasvegass...-sharron-angle/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have it your way, man. Apparently the voters in Arizona and Delaware can recognize a wingnut when they see one. I'm just relieved that the American public, despite their anger at Washington, aren't desperate enough to support fringe weirdos like Angle. :cheers:

 

They have voted Reid in repeatedly in Arizona, and Biden in Delaware, so I wouldn't exactly crow about the intuitive instincts of the voters in either place, MDC. :lol:

 

BTW, World Net Daily? Really? Really? :music_guitarred:

 

Not sure what you can say here. WND was just one of many links I offered - that link in particular was chosen. The information was everywhere. Can you stop being dishonest about sources, and refute content? Or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Harry Reid is a clown just because he holds different views from you? Is he in the circus? I don't know how you can say its a bias view to call Sharron angle nuts when members of her own party were calling her that

 

http://www.lasvegass...-sharron-angle/

 

Is that supposed to have some bearing here? I despise Harry Reid; I think he's a corrupt and manipulative turd. It is my own personal opinion.

 

What's the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×