Octopus Overlords

LawBeefaroni wrote:I mean where do you even come up with this stuff?

It's in his head. I know because what I used to say was in my head too, but like 20 years ago on usenet people politely explained to me that my head was not reality and so while I still make some assertions that I only *think* are correct, instead of knowing they are correct, that happens less and less often than it used to.

You know, because the internet kindly and gentled educated me on how believing something was true didn't make it true.


And for the record, I'll just say that we have an entire army of people here that are willing to ferret out the truth of some outlandish right wing comments, but that same army won't get off it's couch when some questionable left wing comments happen, so it only seems like Rip is all alone in his bullshit.

There's a fair amount of left wing bullshit that never gets called out (and I'll admit it, I'm too lazy most of the time). It's just that Rip is so vocal, alone, and fun that he gets all the attention.

I think we did a pretty good job on the, "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," nonsense. That was a pretty big one.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:

TheMix wrote:The states may be blue, but other than one or two blips, the donations to republicans were higher.

Which goes to what I was stating, making sweeping statements at state level is foolish. Although it's clear that you have no problem with that.

That only works if you think the only people benefiting from all those contracts going to the companies they do is whoever is running it. The states and the people in them make a lot more off of it than the smucks giving out those donations.

Boeing has 800 employees in Illinois. They have over 150,000 total employees.

Rip wrote: A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Total crap. Your own DOD source earlier in the thread has Hawaii at like 9%. Which is not like half. California isn't in the top 5 (#5 is Alaska at 5.7%).

Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Isgrimnur wrote:I think we did a pretty good job on the, "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," nonsense. That was a pretty big one.

Depending on the we, I think OO calls out leftist propaganda. It's just that signal to noise is so much more clear on OO when it comes to calling out rightist propaganda.

Rip wrote:
Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Nice try but...nope.

The money those people spend they earn by working for the military and they get through direct military spending. Which is accounted for in direct military spending.


You seriously think that California would be broke without military bases? Hawaii too?

Rip wrote:Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

So if California lost a couple of hundred thousand working class spenders they would be destroyed?

LordMortis wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I think we did a pretty good job on the, "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," nonsense. That was a pretty big one.

Depending on the we, I think OO calls out leftist propaganda. It's just that signal to noise is so much more clear on OO when it comes to calling out rightist propaganda.

Really?

When exactly was leftist propaganda called out?

Give me lets say 3 examples.

Rip wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I think we did a pretty good job on the, "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," nonsense. That was a pretty big one.

Depending on the we, I think OO calls out leftist propaganda. It's just that signal to noise is so much more clear on OO when it comes to calling out rightist propaganda.

Really?

When exactly was leftist propaganda called out?

Give me lets say 3 examples.

Or maybe instead of sending people searching through threads, you explain how California would be broke without military bases and how salaries spent by military employees is direct military spending in addition to their salaries.

Isgrimnur wrote:I think we did a pretty good job on the, "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage," nonsense. That was a pretty big one.

Oh yeah, this is by no means a deep leftist sanctuary. Opinions vary but land left of center more often than not, with plenty of reasoning that goes beyond sound bites behind it. What we don't have, is tenacious overexciters who'll jump down your throat for even the most minor forays outside of said overexciters ideology.

Rip gets people jumping down his throat because he's insane and doesn't try to hide it like the rest of us do.

edit: but to my original point, we are more apt to put in the effort to refute a position we don't agree with than to refute a position we do agree with, even when the support being put forth for that position is less than factual.

That's just the way it is. I'm not talking about all the time, I'm talking about the tendency.

None of which justifies Rip's attempt to get people to dance in some vain effort to get his approval. Obviously.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:
Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Nice try but...nope.

The money those people spend they earn by working for the military and they get through direct military spending. Which is accounted for in direct military spending.


You seriously think that California would be broke without military bases?

Actually we were broke with military bases until we got a left wing governor in there.

Jaymann wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:
Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Nice try but...nope.

The money those people spend they earn by working for the military and they get through direct military spending. Which is accounted for in direct military spending.


You seriously think that California would be broke without military bases?

Actually we were broke with military bases until we got a left wing governor in there.

In this context he means the GDP of the state, not the state's government itself.

LawBeefaroni wrote:or how salaries spent by military employees is direct military spending in addition to their salaries.

It shouldn't stop then either.
Who ever took that soldiers money as payment likely went on to spend it again. Another dip of the Military Spending chip.

There is a fair chance that the money I used today to buy my lunch is actually California mooch money.

The "leftists" don't post such obviously false propaganda as you do, Rip. Let's not jump into a false equivalency -- there's no other self-declared rabble rouser on OO for the left.

Or Rip could name 3 obvious examples of "leftist propaganda."

GreenGoo wrote:

Jaymann wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:
Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Nice try but...nope.

The money those people spend they earn by working for the military and they get through direct military spending. Which is accounted for in direct military spending.


You seriously think that California would be broke without military bases?

Actually we were broke with military bases until we got a left wing governor in there.

In this context he means the GDP of the state, not the state's government itself.

That's not much of a debuke.

Unagi wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:or how salaries spent by military employees is direct military spending in addition to their salaries.

It shouldn't stop then either.
Who ever took that soldiers money as payment likely went on to spend it again. Another dip of the Military Spending chip.

There is a fair chance that the money I used today to buy my lunch is actually California mooch money.

That means that one of the biggest recipients of direct military spending from the US government is...CHINA!!!!!!1!!1!!!1

Federal Kriminal Sopina time!

http://epaabuse.com/3081/news/shocker-5 ... -released/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gua ... 93545.html

Fast and Furious. To this day the media has not spent much time covering Obama’s murderous program of supplying guns to Mexican Narco-Terrorists, a program that has killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. law enforcement agents.


Occupy Wall Street


The list goes on.

What does the Duke Lacrosse case have to do with anything?

Isgrimnur wrote:

TheMix wrote:Hey, Isg, what we need is a link to an article that shows the biggest recipients of military contracts... and who they are donating to. Being in a blue state does not automatically make every person and company blue.

I agree, that was an impressive level of bullshit.

Federal Procurement Report - Top 100 Contractors Report

Defense Contractor political contributions

Fascinating. The State of California is way up that list, and the country of Canada is near the bottom (but still a significant amount). What the hell is California, as a state, selling to the federal government?

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote: A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Total crap. Your own DOD source earlier in the thread has Hawaii at like 9%. Which is not like half. California isn't in the top 5 (#5 is Alaska at 5.7%).

Given that (IIRC) California is something like the fifth largest economy in the world (if it were an independent country) defense spending being a giant chunk of its economy would be pretty remarkable.

I wanna say 'water futures' , but I'm not sure if that's a clever joke or not.

Unagi wrote:What does the Duke Lacrosse case have to do with anything?

A drubbed up case that was panned by the media and the left as white elitism gone wild and turned out to be Brawley 2.0, when it collapsed no one had much to say about the circus media lynching. So much so they won't mention the false accusers name to this day.

Rip wrote: Hawaii's 9% is direct military spending. I included "defense related" like all the money those military people spend, etc. Without defense spending Hawaii would be broke and desolate like most pacific islands. Same for California, there are a couple hundred thousand military people there, spending money.

Almost 90% of the GDP in Hawaii comes from tourism & service industry (the rest is comprised from military spending, agriculture, and some manufacturing). Pretty sure they'd be fine even if every single military base there closed down tomorrow.

You win, Rip. Add me to the list of people who need to learn how to ignore you in you in R&P.

LordMortis wrote:You win, Rip. Add me to the list of people who need to learn how to ignore you in you in R&P.

It's the only way. Why people keep engaging his stupidity, I cannot understand.

I don't know why you folks don't keep hammering him on his original unsupportable points. You let him go off on completely unrelated topics, which is his standard MO.

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't know why you folks don't keep hammering him on his original unsupportable points. You let him go off on completely unrelated topics, which is his standard MO.

No it isn't.

For instance in that report it show Louisiana received $3.7B(2014), but back in 2012 this shows a more fair appraisal of what the defense spending really means to the economy(and that is 2012).

http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/ ... ntrac.html

The military presence and defense contracts pumped more than $8.7 billion into the Louisiana economy during the 2012 fiscal year, with almost one third of the money tied to bases and activities in the New Orleans area, according to a summary of a long-sought economic impact analysis commissioned by the state.

I keep hearing you guys saying these things aren't important but every time they try to close some bases in CT or California all I hear from anyone on the hill is how decimating that would be to the economies.

Crap shut down some of the So Cal bases and move them to Mexico or the P.I., or better yet with the constantly decreasing numbers of ships and planes lets shut that crap down. I mean how many air bases do you really need for a few dozen f-35s?

Rip (shortened) wrote:Climategate emails
Duke Lacrosse
Guantanamo
Fast and Furious.
Occupy Wall Street

The list goes on.

Those are all burrs under your saddle, Rip, not the liberal OO forum's causes.

Climate emails - perhaps the most "scandalous" liberal idea OO actively supports. But the scientific community argues all the time and the majority of the scientific community STILL thinks climate change is real. Not unique to OO or propaganda.

Duke Lacrosse - media frenzy, not OO. Sure we talked about it but who was saying they don't get a trial?

Guantanamo - Don't recall OO waxing about the need to free these guys (except Fireball), maybe saying it's not surprising they hate us after a decade even if they didn't before. Indefinite detainment isn't really a justifiable option. Anyway, it's a policy argument not conspiracy (unless you think OO is in the pocket of the Taliban).

Fast and Furious - Don't recall OO doing more than giving this a meh. Reagan did the same, so there's precedent for doing stupid shit. Besides, isn't MORE GUNS the solution to everything in your book, Rip? Not even Trump is chasing this crazy.

Occupy Wall Street - 4-8 years ago. Not a real factor. Angry students who fail to get any attention after a financial crisis is hardly a conspiracy. Certainly not an effective one. They certainly drove LM away.

Care to throw more spaghetti against the wall? Maybe cite some conspiracies and propaganda OO actually supported rather than just failing to jump onboard the Rip bandwagon (cue Ozzy music)?

Rip wrote:

Unagi wrote:What does the Duke Lacrosse case have to do with anything?

A drubbed up case that was panned by the media and the left as white elitism gone wild and turned out to be Brawley 2.0, when it collapsed no one had much to say about the circus media lynching. So much so they won't mention the false accusers name to this day.

But, when the truth came out, we all talked about it. We can't be responsible for what other people do, just ourselves.

When we talk about outrageous right wing shit in this context, we're talking about stuff YOU say. We don't hold you responsible for BreitBart, except for when you post his shit like it means something.

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't know why you folks don't keep hammering him on his original unsupportable points. You let him go off on completely unrelated topics, which is his standard MO.

For the record I was going to apologize for giving him an easy distraction to hide behind. I feel kinda bad for the guy when 1/2 the forum participates in drubbing him.

RunningMn9 wrote:

LordMortis wrote:You win, Rip. Add me to the list of people who need to learn how to ignore you in you in R&P.

It's the only way. Why people keep engaging his stupidity, I cannot understand.

What else is there to do?

Who else am going to argue with? My family or clients who say the same shit? I received an email this week from someone I suspect will vote Trump claiming the Pope's address to the House was part of a conspiracy against Christianity. And I'm Catholic!

Besides, I beat dead horses.

See, I represent all the relatives and friends that annoy you but you like to much to say anything to.

I am your salvation, if not for me most of you guys would ticking time bombs waiting to go off on poor grandma because she sent you a "Make America Great Again link on the facebook.

You are welcome.

Thank you.

That said, I've been itching to put grandma in her place for awhile. Thanksgiving is coming up (Canadians, eh? Whatcha gonna do?)

Rip wrote:
It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Which is why we end up with a military made up of over-engineered, overpriced crap like the F-35.

While soldiers and veterans get the shaft.

Jesus, that is the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time. If you want to know why soldiers and veterans get the shaft, you can look straight at the Republicans in Congress.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Which is why we end up with a military made up of over-engineered, overpriced crap like the F-35.

While soldiers and veterans get the shaft.

Jesus, that is the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time. If you want to know why soldiers and veterans get the shaft, you can look straight at the Republicans in Congress.

That knife cuts both ways.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12 ... dget-bill/

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

The two-year budget agreement, which cleared a key test vote earlier in the day, was expected to get a final vote no later than Wednesday.

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.

A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.

Rip wrote: I am your salvation

Nah, you're our comedy relief...but one who's not always aware that he is.

I always feel kind of bad for you though. The majority of your claims are disproved (usually by quoting something you yourself wrote previously) within a few minutes.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote: I am your salvation

Nah, you're our comedy relief...but one who's not always aware that he is.

I always feel kind of bad for you though. The majority of your claims are disproved (usually by quoting something you yourself wrote previously) within a few minutes.

Bizarro Rip is a formidable debating opponent.

El Guapo wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote: I am your salvation

Nah, you're our comedy relief...but one who's not always aware that he is.

I always feel kind of bad for you though. The majority of your claims are disproved (usually by quoting something you yourself wrote previously) within a few minutes.

Bizarro Rip is a formidable debating opponent.

It's like the anti-Isg. Just google up random, unrelated garbage to keep moving the goalposts.

No direct answer to any questions.

El Guapo wrote:
Bizarro Rip is a formidable debating opponent.

Only to Earth 616 Rip.