Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Stop pretending a lottery would be damaging
Thursday, Jan. 1, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves and get serious about solving the disastrous education problem in our state. Our citizenry is sick and tired of listening to the casino industry’s meritless attempts to convince us that a state lottery to more than fully support our education system would bite into its billion-dollar profits.
The industry’s rhetorical propaganda has been shown to be just that in many other states. A lottery would not even dent the companies’ bottom lines. And, if a lottery is implemented judiciously in Nevada, and designed to keep the politicians’ hands off the lottery income, it will provide for more schools, more income and benefits necessary to acquire better teachers to improve the programs and education level that our state so desperately needs.
Even the casinos would profit by selling lottery tickets, and the lottery would create much-needed jobs in Nevada.
It’s time for us to stop fooling around and get a lottery going in our state! Or would the casinos prefer that we keep driving to Arizona and California to support those states by buying lottery tickets? Isn’t this a no-brainer?
Discussion: 91 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- ‘Stripper-mobile’ with live dancers raises safety, decency concerns
- Manny Pacquiao, Miguel Cotto arrive at MGM Grand
- Report: State’s economy worse off than any other
- Harrah’s launches program to focus on small group travel
- Rebels survive scare from Division-II Washburn
- Encore, M Resort added to Forbes Travel list
- Strip gaming win sees smallest decline since June 2008
- Las Vegas sees first monthly visitor increase since May 2008
- Study cites challenges of Nevada’s financial problems
- Dispute over casino baccarat systems prompts lawsuit
Blogs
TUF Heavyweights
Episode 9: Funky chickens
Shark Bytes
Players on championship team always worked hard (5 Comments)
Sports: Upon Further Review
Fight snapshot: Predictions for Pacquiao-Cotto (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
A lesson in information dissemination, with a little Twitter and a lot of Agassi
Now and Then
Ichabods were tougher than they sound (2 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
I shudder to think what the “amazing door prize from the governor” might be (7 Comments)
Pew Center report finds what others have: Nevada's economy depressed, future in doubt (7 Comments)
Calendar »
- 12 Thu
- 13 Fri
- 14 Sat
- 15 Sun
- 16 Mon
-
Las Vegas Wranglers vs. Utah Grizzlies
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Lily Tomlin at the Hollywood Theatre
Hollywood Theatre at MGM Grand
-
Leonard Cohen at The Colosseum
The Colosseum | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Football specials at Diablo's
Diablos Cantina
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
A lottery is a tax on hope. Don't bother the odds are ridiculously high.
I suspect that the folks who would spend their money on lottery tickets are spending it on casino gaming already... I used to buy powerball tickets when I lived in Iowa .. over the course of a year purchasing 5 random number tickets for each drawing ... Wens. and Sat. drawings ... I "won" 18 dollars total ... 52 weeks X 10 dollars means 18 bucks isn't a very good return on ones money .. ask the "flippers".
I am all for the lottery.
It is a tax on dumb people.
Dumb people gamble a lot, too. I can see why the casino's are worry that they will lose revenue to the lottery.
I can't disagree with this thought. However, what it will really take is a citizenry that keeps pushing and pushing for better education. That's the problem: many adults here are not so educated themselves, and don't value education very much.
Then there's an aristocratic crowd of doctors, lawyers, executives, and such who believe in their superiority, and put their kids in private schools. Why would they want to support the public school system? Many with money like things just the way they are.
As a college grad struggling to survive, with no hope of ever having an income that will allow me out of lower-middle-class life, I do wonder sometimes how "worth it" education is to a lot of my students. I look at some who really don't care that much and think, "They'll probably have a better life, and better work, than I do." On the other hand, I look at others and know that their odds for a good life are very poor.
Don't get me wrong. I am a strong believer in education. However, the majority of parents I see do not seem to be so. With so many adults here who don't value education, that makes the job of emphasizing education that much harder for those who do.
A good approach might be to convince businesses here that a first-class education system could turn this city into a world class city, with a far more diverse economic base and more culture. As it is, this is largely a place where educated, cultured people either avoid or visit for a few days and then escape home. However, more people with more disposable income might live here if we had a really good education system.
Just a few things to think about -
To "teacher,"
While I agree with what you say, I have a problem with the notion behind it, that the purpose of an education is to give one the tools necessary to make a good living. That is certainly part of why people should be educated, but it is not the only reason, and not even the most important reason. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why education doesn't enjoy the support of a large segment of the Nevada population is that its proponents have failed to convince people that education has value beyond preparing one for a job.
It is true that there are a plethora of ways that people can make a good living in ths town without an education, but that doesn't mean that valet parkers, bellmen, and cocktail servers don't need to be educated. Educated people make better citizens and have far greater capacity for critical thought. Speaking for myself, my education has made my life fulfilling in ways that go far beyond its ability to provide me with an income. I wouldn't trade it for any amount of money.
Are casino's really so worried that the few bucks someone spends buying lottery tickets would really negatively impact their business? Good grief!
Nance. What a swell gentleman. Always takes the high road.
What you think it is smart for people to buy tons of lottery tickets?
It is one thing to buy a $1 ticket once or twice once a month. It is throwing money down the drain to spend more than that. But if people want to throw money down the drain then I am Ok with that. It is their money.
If they are going to waste their money, then it is good that the state and the smart owners of Casinos take it from them. They will spend and/or invest it more wisely.
The lottery, like gambling, feeds off the foolish and takes advantage of the dumb. The odds on wining a state lottery are terrible. The odds of winning Megabucks are much better (but still outlandish).
I guess you can not handle the truth.
"Nance. What a swell gentleman."
Hmmmm...calls people "dumb" but reacts when people call him names....sorry, "swell" is not the word that comes to mind.
The master of the Mystery speaks............
Are you not going to list some more of your self-anointed titles and qualifications that you "earned" lately??????
Surely by now you have made given yourself a title of Doctor.
You are the only one in Vegas that is "qualifed" to speak on matters of spirituality.
God forbid that you move.
More name calling Jim? Must have hit a sensitive spot. Hard to imagine where you get off calling people names while complaining about the same. How typically hypocritical of you.
Again, you asked me what qualified me. Then you have forever chided me for telling you. Frankly I don't care, but it does expose how weak minded you are when you constantly distract demean and dismiss.
You were the one that was running around telling others that they were not qualified to say anything about spiritual matters. You were stating that only you can speak on such matters. That is when I challenge you present to your qualifications. Then you revealed that you anointed yourself with title of being expert....no degree...no certification from a valid 3rd party.
I guess you must think that you are all knowning about the the life of all people who post and showhow via your all-knowing power deem them not qualified.
Yes, only a weak minded person or an idiot would be telling people they are the an expert and others are not.
Mr. self-anionted Master of Mystery has placed himself far above all us other folk.
Please show us mercy and grace us with your wealth of wisdom .
I never did any such thing. I do realize you might see it that way, but that doesn't make it so.
Maybe some day you will work your reactions to other people having knowledge that challenges you, until then, I patiently wait through your near constant insults.
Here are some of your "I am more qualified " remarks.
"I'm more qualified than you in the psychology department"
"You know nothing about psychology or spirituality and aren't qualified to make that statement. "
Go ahead and beat your chest some more. You have this all-knowing power that you know everything about other people and tell them how much smarter that you are than them.
"I patiently wait through your near constant insults."
I never go around looking for other postings and then open up with personal insults on the other blogger like you did in this thread.
You were the first to open fire in this thread with a person insult so like many other the threads.
But I will zing back if somebody zings me.
You seem to have this obession with me. You are constantly personally attacking me on any thread.
I would rather attack your arguments instead of attacking you personally.
But I will return fire if someobody starts to atatck me personally.
So do not cry about insults especially when you open up with an insult.
Jim, you asked me for those qualifications. I've said it several times. It is your misconstruction of the posts that makes them appear to be something they are not. You conveniently leave out the part where you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. All I did was show that, as a matter of fact, I do know what I'm taking about.
By the way, you hold the exclusive position of being the only person to ever react to me being a mystery scholar. To most people, it's like saying "I'm a Christian", not a big deal. It is you who has reacted so strongly to it and proceeded to demean me for it at every single opportunity.
I am more qualified Jim, because I studied the very things you questioned. That is not a big deal either. It just happens to be. I honestly don't get why that's a problem for you.
The really stupid thing, Jim, is that all your noise was about whether of not Sarah Palin believed man walked the earth with dinasours 6000 years ago.
You are still in a massive reaction to my statement "she might", and have continued to belittle me for it ever since. This seems to be your defense against that statement, instead of anything meaningful.
There are many people in this world who know much that you do not. It would do you well to recognize that, and to know and admit when you are wrong.
Finally, I did not attack you in this stream. Your comprehension seems to suffer from the distorted filters of your unworked reactions.
That, my friend, is where we differ most.
"I am more qualified Jim, because I studied the very things you questioned"
Wow....you are so all-knowing that you know everything about me and others. You must believe you are the only person on the planet that studies things. I know you think you know a lot but I doubt if you know very much about me or anybody else that blogs here. Which makes it very hard for to make statements about being more qualified than another people.
You make this statement: "Finally, I did not attack you in this stream."
You seem to have a reading/writing problem.
What the hell do you think this means:
"sorry, "swell" is not the word that comes to mind"
You are just in a state of total of denial there is no help for you. You can not even understand the very words that you post.
You said "all knowing". I said "qualified". Massive difference.
Exactly the same as when you refer to Obama as a Messiah, simply because so many people like him. You make it appear as though others are inflated, whilst being completely unaccountable for your own inflation.
"What the hell do you think this means:"
It means you are thin skinned. If you call that an attack, then you have a very fragile ego.
Being thin skinned and inflated go together. Since you have no justification for your inflation, you react whenever questioned or when you see somebody doing what you do.
I'm nothing special Jim. There are thousands of people just like me and who know what I know. It is only you who has a problem with that.
Believe me when I say, the reason I do not care what you think of my knowledge, is because you are completely incompetent to judge. You don't know anything about it. Not because you are stupid, but because you have not made it a priority to learn about it.
Your scoffing doesn't make you credible. It just takes the place of answers you don't have.
As for being thin-skin......you insulted me and then I insulted you and then you cried that I was demeaning to you. Hey, big boy, you threw out the 1st insult on this thread and you threw out the 1st sob story about insults on this tread.
Again, I do not insult somebody personally unless they insult me first. So if you never insult me personally again then I will never insult you personally again. I will just stick to arguing the points which I suggest that you do, too.
I also perfer that you do not have this obession about me which is kinda of freaky.
The person that has an ego is you. You are the one who claims superiority in qualifications on a topic without even having a slightest idea on what the other person's qualifications are. Mr. "I know more than you" needs to go look into the mirror and do an ego check.
You are free to offer your own qualifications and knowledge on the subject any time you like. You have chosen, instead, to belittle.
Feel free to offer the ways you work with your material or reactions Jim. Feel free to offer the background of your certainty about what Sarah Palin believes.
To date, you have offered nothing to back up your bloviating. Nothing at all except to belittle the things other people know that you do not.
If you think I am insulted by someone who scoffs at people like the Dalai Lama, you are wrong. I know that you know nothing on the subject, so why would I care? The reason I know you know nothing is because you display total incompetence. Scoffing is not a demonstration of competence.
You're also lying about not attacking first Jim. I see you do it to me and others without even being a party to the stream. In fact, you do it all the time.
You will not find one thread where I attack a blogger personally without that blogger attacking me personally first.
So Mr. "I am know more than you" are lying about that.
So again.....do not throw personal insults if you do not want to receive them . Especially, do not whine about "demeaning" comments if you are the first one to insult.
You have never offered one single reason to question my opinion about Sarah Palin's potential belief in the dinosaur theory other than ridicule. Your response was ridicule. That would be YOU attacking first.
Again, you lose on all counts. No logic or sense, and false bravado.
Arguing over points is much different then hurling personal insults.
You do know that the Palin dinosaur "quote" originated from a website that in big letters it says, "Fake Palin quotes".
You were probably one of those people that got punked when DailyKos passed it off as real quote and were probably looking dumb when you tried to past it off as a real quote, too.
Now, I guess you want to theorized on all the possible beliefs that Palin may or may not have related to her religion. I will do it as long as we also discuss possible theorized beliefs that Obama may or may not have related to his religion. I have some real gems to go over as possible Obama religious beliefs, especially during his time when his spiritual mentor was the famous Rev Wright.
You asked me if I thought she did. I answered that if she was an evangelical, she might, because many of them do.
You then distorted that to me saying "she does" and that "all evangelicals do", which isn't even close to what I said.
I told you that the reason I knew that was because I once was an evangelical, and also studies religions, which is true.
You then berated me for telling you why I knew what I knew, and accused me of reading it off some website with fake quotes about her.
Since that time it has been never ending barrage of condensing insults from you.
I don't get your polarities and distortions Jim. My statement was straightforward an unambiguous. It did not warrant your response.
I've already discussed Wright with you. It was a follow up to our conversation about Sarah and the dinosaurs. There is no need to revisit it now. You guy already lost anyway, just like I told you he would. Remember the myth you dismissed?
I call that intentional misunderstanding of your words, "Nanceification," John.
It's like translating English to Spanish and then back to English again. Sometimes, it doesn't make sense. With Nance, it never makes sense.
Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually.
Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words.
Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08.
Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce.
It's either distortion or lies with Nance.
I went back to that thread about the first thread about Palin.
"I don't get your polarities and distortions "
In that thread you falsely said that I claimed that Obama is a muslim. So it is like the kettle calling the pot black when you are accusing someone of spewing polarities and distortions. I can point out other polarities and distortions if you want me, too.
"condensing insults from you."
If you review the threads then you will see that you would post a personal insult first and then I would insult you back.
I will not insult you if you do not insult me in the thread.
My preference is arguing about points.
I do not remember the myth that you are refering to.
theBS said that pot was not legal.
His words: "Is pot legal? No."
FYI.....one can legally buy pot in several states including Nevada.
(I could list more but I do not have the obvious obessive behavior that theBS has about me and keep a running list of his lies and distortions. )
It's either distortion or lies with theBS.
Also, I hope everybody knows that theBS is the thread queen. Violate one of theBS rules and you are in big big trouble.
I was comparing pot to cigarettes, and no, pot is not legal to buy as cigarettes are legal to buy.
Your average joe cannot walk in off the street and legally buy pot. A prescription is needed, and only in some states. So no, in the strictest terms, pot is not "legal" as in legalized. It remains a heavily controlled substance, unlike tobacco, which merely has an age restriction.
See, with context, your criticisms of me are impotent. But it is to be expected to you... your modus operandi: distortion and lies.
Whereas my criticisms of you? You couldn't refute one of them.
theBs is now changing the rules. That is surprising with you being the thread queen and all.
You are usually so very tight and strict on people's post and holding them to every dot and dash but I guess you want to have extra liberty with your own post.
I guess you can not take the medicine that you dish out.
In your original post, you were very clear with no qualifications. You said: "Is pot legal? No."
Of course, you had to changed your song and dance once I pointed that it is legal in several states.
You lied and were distorting the facts when you said that pot is not legal.
Now be a big boy and swallow your own medicine.
"So no, in the strictest terms, pot is not "legal" as in legalized."
So quickly, theBS is adding more lies and distortions.
"Pot is not legal as in legalized." What the hell does that mean?
You are lying and distorting the truth. In the strictest terms, pot is legal as in legalized in several states.
There is no such thing as illegal legalized.
People are legally buying pot in several states.
It is really, really simple, which is why you don't understand.
I can walk into a convenience store and buy cigarettes.
I cannot walk into a convenience store and buy pot.
Is it legal for me to buy pot? No.
Is it legal for you to buy pot? Not without a prescription. Without a prescription, you'll be arrested.
That's a funny definition of the word "legal," Nance. Being arrested for something that's legal? Only in your world.
And what of the fact that there are still federal laws that prohibit purchasing pot? What of the Controlled Substances Act? What about the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which makes prescriptions for medical pot illegal? What of the 35 states that do not allow medical usage? Forget about those?
"People are legally buying pot in several states." The general public is not able to buy pot. It remains a misdemeanor/felony to purchase pot. PATIENTS with a prescription are buying pot in several states, but that is only legal in a local sense. The drug is under strict controls, something you omit in a struggle to gain traction in the argument. Above all else, ALL of these people can still be prosecuted under existing federal law. You lose... again.
So if even patients can be arrested and prosecuted that's "legal" in your eyes, how is that even close to being "legal?"
Adding context to your out-of-context quotation makes all the difference, and makes you look like a fool for Nanceifying my words.
Still no rebuttal of my points, though. I can take all the misrepresentation and lies you can muster. Your response to my charges is impotent, and no amount of flailing will help.
Spin some more lies about Obama's plan for plug-in hybrids, Nance.
Spin some more lies about sunspots, Nance.
You simply can't accept you were wrong... and I'll be around to remind you on a regular basis.
So.....theBS has one set of rules for everybody and a different set of rules for himself.
That figures.
He said: "Pot legal? No"
That is a false statement. One can legally buy pot under state law in several states.
What????.....Oh.....theBS wants to change his original posting to say pot is not as unrestrictive as cigs in most states......nope.....according the Supreme Rules of theBS thread queen....one can't add qualifications to a previous issued statement. That is a big no-no in theBS world.
You should know your own rules.
Sorry....just enforcing the rules that you live by.
Buying pot is a federal crime under the Controlled Substances Act. It is not legal to buy a Schedule I drug, regardless of local laws. My point stands. You have failed, again, to refute it.
And since you're too cowardly to post my context, I'll do it for you:
"You openly admit your argument is flawed. Your case is based on a lack of restraint. The same UNTRUE fallacy can be applied to cigarettes/pot. All of the arguments that allow cigarettes to be legal can be applied to pot. Is pot legal? No."
It was made in the context of being similar to cigarettes.
You fail, again.
Meanwhile, you still haven't refuted your lies about sunspots, or plug-in hybrids, or the timeline of Gibbons appointment of Montero.
Those charges stand as fact.
"Your average joe cannot walk in off the street and legally buy pot"
....Another theBS falsehood
In California, once you average Joe contacts a doctor by calling 888-POT-DOCS and get a word document printed out that says the person needs pot for a "medical" reason. The average Joe can walf off the street for the next year and legally buy his pot.
Average Joes everyday are walking off the street and buying pot.
And committing fraud and are subject to local and federal prosection for doing so.
That's not legal, dunce.
theBS falsehood: "The legislative branch of the government does NOT have the right to issue rulings? Apparently, you want to burn the Constitution altogether then"
You are lying about the Constitution.
It is the judical branch that has the right to issuing rulings not the legislative branch. The legislative passes laws not rulings.
Tsk...tsk...tsk...another theBS rule broken.
Now that you've been shot down on the pot stuff, you return with a typo?
I typed legislative when I meant judicial.
Weak, but I'll take responsibility for my words.
In the mean time, if you want to talk typos, what the heck is "respondibility?"
Keep trying, Nance.
Another theBS falsehood:
"Yes, and instead of tending to that company and ensuring it could meet its burdens, or investing money in his company to ensure it was competitive"
In the last 6 months, Adelson has pumped $1 billion into his casino company.
I think that means your statement that he is not "investing money in his company to ensure it was competitive" is a lie.
"I typed legislative when I meant judicial."
According to theBS's thread rules, that is a lie.
Really, jfnance32, this is pathetic.
You are well known on this website for lying about what other people say.
You have no credibility and have to distort other people's words to make a point.
All this stuff about marijuana? Thebs is correct, it is not legal under federal law. You said it is "legal." It isn't.
Such a sad, sad little man. I guess your new years resolution is to be a sore loser.
This is all you have? A few lines out of context?
You realize you're proving the point that all you have are lies and distortion, right?
"In the last 6 months, Adelson has pumped $1 billion into his casino company."
Funny, that's AFTER THE FACT. He didn't invest it when it really could've staved off the serious problems. He invested it in Freedom's Watch instead, which bombed, spectacularly.
Also, you don't even have the respect to quote my entire sentence.
Pathetic.
Keep it going, you're proving my point.
The entire line was:
"Yes, and instead of tending to that company and ensuring it could meet its burdens, or investing money in his company to ensure it was competitive, he sank money into Freedom's Watch, which tanked. Fiduciary responsibility? Vocabulary words that Nance isn't quite familiar with."
My point stands, he should have invested that money into LVS.
Another theBS falsehood:
"Iraq didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did."
Iraq attack our our planes during the ceasefire.
Iraq attacked one our ships before the 1st war.
In 1993, Iraq tried to kill George Herbert Walker Bush.
According to theBS thread rules, the above statement fails his strict truth test and is therefore rule a lie.
Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually.
Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words.
Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08.
Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce.
It's either distortion or lies with Nance.
I am sorry theBS but I am following the strict thread rules that you have so commonly used with everbody on this website.
You stated lies many times.
"Iraq didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did."
We were talking about 9/11. Again, you selectively remove context. Nanceification, at it's best.
"Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015"
That was a typo and even in that thread later on I said it was a typo.
But....you are right....typos are lies in theBS thread rules.
You are rule out-of-order. You previous typo is ruled a lie.
The difference is intent, Nance. I don't intend to mislead people. You seem to intentionally make stuff up to support your losing arguments.
Then, as we've seen here, you quote two or three words out of a sentence and claim it's a lie.
Your reputation on the Sun's website precedes you, Nance.
And tonight, you've only made it worse... with your credibility circling the drain.
"That was a typo and even in that thread later on I said it was a typo."
I'll accept that one as a typo, even though I don't remember your sudden honesty.
What about your other lies? Were those typos as well?
"Again, you selectively remove context. Nanceification, at it's best."
Sorry we will adhere to the thread queen, theBS, thread rules.
If the statement must hold water on its own. Context is rule out.
Like quoting an article that said sun spots are trending downward for the last decade.
According to theBS, that was a lie for the first 2 years, it went up and then for the next 8 it went down.
Yep, no context or even using the plain English meaning of "trending" is allowed.
theBS does have his rules. We must adhere to them.
Yes, I was trying to get you to understand how sunspots occur in cycles. I didn't think it was a hard concept to understand, but you insisted on being as difficult as possible.
Let's revisit your words, shall we?
"Shhhhhh....little secret.....sun spots have been trending down for a decade and are at an all time low...we are entering into a cooling trend.....GLOBAL WARMING warms Gore's bank account."
The "all-time low" was ZERO sunspots over a 12-month period, which first happened CENTURIES ago.
You then replied, "For many months this year, we had zero sunspots."
I replied with NOAA data which proved that false.
If you aren't going to take the time to do even a tiny bit of research, you deserve to get called out for it.
Another theBS falsehood: "Not a surprise you'd blame the passage of Prop 8 on African-Americans"
I never blamed the passage of Prop 8 on African-Americans.
I said that over 70% of black voters voted for Prop 8 which is reported by many news organizations. Not on any thread will you find me blaming black voters for the passage of Prop 8.
Another lie by theBs or this is where you will throw out the "inference" as your excuse. You add words to my words. That is rule of order according to the theBS thread rules.
So what about this, Nance?
"It was his actions that trigger them to write the first letter. His appointment came before the first letter. It was his actions that kick their butts into gear and now they are back on track."
What you are saying here is that "his appointment (Gibbons appointment of Montero) came before the first letter."
Those are your words, right?
Is your statement true?
I stand by that statement, Nance.
You wrote, "Obama brought out droves of blacks in Cali and about 70% of black voted against gay marriage."
You clearly wanted readers to draw a conclusion between the passage of Prop 8 and the African-American vote.
So if I were to ask: was it a connection, or superfluous, I'll say a connection. I've seen the way you argue. That's standard-issue Nance.
Another theBS falsehood: "Bush cut the corporate tax rate."
Bush has never cut the corporate tax rate.
That is either a lie or a distortion of the truth. theBS rules......it is .......?????
Alert......alert.......theBS has issued a new ruling......One can infer statements from another person........warning....warning....he made reverse this ruling at any second...
theBS falsehood: "Ah, I see. Raggio's special. Any excuse to cling to your debunked rhetoric...
"He help pushed the last big tax increase."
Actually, Raggio and Gansert took tax increases off the table during the last special session. Get your facts straight."
Here theBS is saying that fact that Raggio pushed the last big tax increase is false.
Yes, the last big tax increase was pushed by Raggio. It was big and it increase our taxes. Yes the last big tax increase was pushed by Raggio.
theBS falsehood: "How many times have you been wrong in the past six months, Nance? When you announced Hillary would be the nominee? When you announced McCain would win when he picked Palin? When you announced Obama had no shot when he didn't pick Clinton as his running mate?"
I never said Hillary would be the nominee. You can not even "infer" that one.
I never said that McCain would win when he picked Palin. I dare you even post a hint of that either.
As for, "When you announced Obama had no shot when he didn't pick Clinton as his running mate?"
I said that would have a better chance with Hillary. I did not say "no shot". Of course, you will "infer" AGAIN!
Yes, theBS has crazy rules that he exempts himself from. He can never drink his own medicine.
Yes, theBS sometimes out and out lies, too.
theBS "It's either distortion or lies with Nance."
Last night he emphatically insisted to me that he never attacks first. It took me less than a minute to find a post where he attacked you with a derogatory homophobic comment without any provocation from you at all. He said this about you "first" without you addressing him in any way.
He's done it to me before many times as well. And as far as twisting and distorting my words, well, that's a constant.
He's been on a constant tirade against me for weeks because he says I am always spouting my qualifications. The truth is, I did it only to him and only as a response to his assertion that I didn't know what I was talking about.
For a while I thought there might be hope for this guy. But I think he's too wedded to being right (correct) all the time and so he misses the opportunity to learn something, anything, from anyone else.
I know that much of the time Jim is completely full of it. But I'm unwilling to spend infinite hours in dialog with him about it, mostly for the reasons I just stated. Why bother when his entire compulsion is to never admit being wrong?
"Bush has never cut the corporate tax rate."
In 2004, Bush signed, "the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups."
Nance: Debunked.
"Actually, Raggio and Gansert took tax increases off the table during the last special session. Get your facts straight."
Which is true, but my quote came from a discussion of Raggio's support of the 2003 tax increase. Which, yes, Raggio supported.
Nance: Debunked.
So far, your "stalkeresque" impassioned ranting has netted you nothing, Nance.
My points, though? You can't argue. Even if I accept one as a typo, there's three more unanswered.
And John, of course he attacks first. He's used homophobic language against me for awhile. He won't admit this, of course. He just made a very adamant statement that he doesn't attack first... which is untrue.
Everything he says must be questioned. He makes statements of fact that are outright lies, and when you point them out, he'll go on what I'll politely call "offense" with out-of-context bull like this.
And it's really easy to debunk, so I don't mind.
""Actually, Raggio and Gansert took tax increases off the table during the last special session. Get your facts straight.""
Dude that was your words not mind.
I said the Raggio supported the last big tax increase that you said was false. That is true. The last big tax increase was supported by Ragoo.
"Bush has never cut the corporate tax rate."
In 2004, Bush signed, "the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups."
Now you have invented your English language.
Bush has NEVER CUT the corporate tax rate. Tax breaks in English do not mean tax rates.
But I see how you will always "win".
You have rules that never apply to you. If it looks like you losing then bingo "new rule" and you win again.
It is obviously that you lack princples that you are willing to abide by yourself.
How this one full of out and out lies:
theBS falsehood: "How many times have you been wrong in the past six months, Nance? When you announced Hillary would be the nominee? When you announced McCain would win when he picked Palin? When you announced Obama had no shot when he didn't pick Clinton as his running mate?"
JohnEvegas:
I called theBS that name after he personally attack me first with an insult. So my rule stands that I never attack personally unless attack personally first.
"I called theBS that name after he personally attack me first with an insult."
Nope. I read the stream. No attacks from him. Only you. Your homophobic remark was not only hateful and entirely out of place, it was uncalled for.
And you attacked me FIRST for my opinion about Sarah Palin, among many many other things. In fact, you are still attacking me for it and continually belittling me for what I believe.
It's odd to me that you use this tactic. As many people have told you here, it does nothing for your credibility to twist deny and distort. I can't imagine why anyone who is so concerned with being right all the time would resort to falsehoods and distortions in order not to be wrong.
The very MO you employ undermines your effort. As I have said to you many times before, admitting you are wrong will not only help you learn, it will help you to be taken seriously.
As I also said before, I patiently await your efforts in that regard, and in the mind time, am prepared to deal with the endless barrage of disparaging remarks and condescension.
By the way, me pointing out that you are being condescending, dismissive, and derogatory, is not being thin skinned. Those are statements of fact, like, the sun is up. If I were being thin skinned, I would have reacted and said something like "You're a big jerk!" like you do. There is no reaction in those statements.
jfnance32, I have see you call thebs a thread queen many, many times without provocation.
Your "rule" does not stand, you are lying again.
And I think it is hilarious that the things that were brought up first about jfnance32 having no credibility have not been answered by jfnance32.
He wants a response from someone on "falsehoods" but acknowledges that those things he has said are untrue.
I have read comments from both authors over many months, and have uncovered jfnance32's lies and distorted truths myself. I have been a victim of his lies and shameful distortion.
I see that when questioned, he turns it around and tries to attack the person who criticized him, rather than answer the charges.
Jfnance32, you have lost this struggle.
Yes, and Johnevegas, too. You have been attacked by jfnance32 for your religious beliefs. He ridicules you for your education.
Jfnance32, you are anything but innocent.
ksand99,
You have said lies and distortions, too.
Do you want me to list some?
I only call theBS the tread queen when he attacks me personally first.
johnevegas....I being called a liar does not make it in your list of personal insults.
So your a liar.......please do not whine that it is a personal insult.
Johnevags: "endless barrage of disparaging remarks and condescension."
If you do not attack me personally with insults than I will not attack you personally with insults.
I will debate the points not the person.
No, I would like you to answer the original charges:
"Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually."
"Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words."
"Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08."
"Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce."
You have never answered all of these.
I wonder why that is?
"So your a liar.......please do not whine that it is a personal insult."
Only coming through your filter of distortions. I have no need to lie, since I am willing to be wrong. You should try it.
Again, you attack first Jim. You have attacked me first Jim. You attack others first Jim. I find some of your remarks to be shockingly hateful and closed minded. It's not shocking that you say them. It's shocking that YOU say them, and yet, seem so committed to "facts".
I'm curious about something. Do you have any spiritual practice? Do you do anything to identify why being right is so important to you? It seems like an obsession. If somebody told me that I never admitted being wrong, I would pay attention and see if that was true. I would want to know.
" If somebody told me that I never admitted being wrong, I would pay attention and see if that was true"
Have you check? Is it true about you? When have you admitted to being wrong in the threads?
I have admitted to errors but you are too busy posting personal insults to read those postings.
When I say something in error, you and your pals say it is a lie.
Using that logic then all errors are lies.
For example, you have claimed that I called Obama a muslim. Is that an error or a lie?
Jfnance32,
I would like you to answer the original charges:
"Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually."
"Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words."
"Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08."
"Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce."
You have never answered all of these.
I wonder why that is?
"When I say something in error, you and your pals say it is a lie."
"Using that logic then all errors are lies."
Dictionary.com: Lie (3) an inaccurate or false statement.
There's a difference between errors (your frequent spelling and grammar mistakes) and making inaccurate or false statements. When you choose to make statements that are not supported by facts, when you choose to misrepresent factual information, that is a lie.
Are we to believe that your frequent lapses into lies and distortions are "accidents?" They happen so frequently, you must be overly prone to mishaps. You must be the least lucky person on the planet to have that many "accidents," jfance32.
Take some 'respondibility' for your mistakes! LOL!
ksand99:
Dictionary.com: Lie (3) an inaccurate or false statement.
"For twelve years they [Republicans] were in control of congress"
This is an inaccurate and false statement.
ksand99 is a liar.
Why are you cowering away from the question posed to you, jfnance32?
"For twelve years they [Republicans] were in control of congress"
"With few intermissions, the Republican Party controlled Congress from the 1860s until defeated by the New Deal Democrats in 1932."
If you are going to be cowardly and remove the context from my words, I'll put new context with them and make them accurate.
Try that on for size!
"I'll put new context with them and make them accurate."
So the old original context made them inaccurate. Otherwise you would list that context.
There is absolutely no context on the planet that ever would make the statement that Republicans controlled Congress for the last 12 years as factually correct.
Why not admitted that you made an error?
"Have you check? Is it true about you? When have you admitted to being wrong in the threads?"
Oh ya, 3 or 4 times in the last few weeks. It's important to me to understand something well, rather than be right or appear to be right. I consider a willingness to be wrong (or to admit not knowing) as being key to personal growth. Hard to see that working any other way.
If I suggest you work your shadow, you can do that or not. It isn't meant as a slam, it's actually meant as a helpful suggestion. The reason being, if you did do that, it would elevate the exchange between you and everyone else. You would be less reactive and better informed, and have an advantage for yourself.
There a many layers of information available to you all the time. As long as you belittle spiritual practices (and I do not mean religion), you will be at the disadvantage of not being able to see those layers. Not my rules. It's just how it works.
johnevegas:
If you do not attack me personally with insults than I will not attack you personally with insults.
I rather debate the points not the person. I will challenge your opinions if I think it is important and if I think they are wrong.
Let's reread my quote that you posted, jfnance32:
"For twelve years they [Republicans] were in control of congress"
You then wrote:
"There is absolutely no context on the planet that ever would make the statement that Republicans controlled Congress for THE LAST 12 years as factually correct."
Do you see what you did there? You changed the context from "in control of congress for twelve years" to "in control of Congress for THE LAST 12 years."
I never argued they were in control the last 12 years. You quoted me and then intentionally misrepresented what I said.
Case in point! You seem to be unable to stop being deceitful and untruthful. I think this has become a compulsion for you. Get help.
In the mean time, care to answer those questions?
"Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually."
"Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words."
"Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08."
"Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce."
You have never answered all of these.
I wonder why that is?
"If you do not attack me personally with insults than I will not attack you personally with insults."
I think that's part of the problem actually. It would appear that you see disagreement as a personal attack.
"I never argued they were in control the last 12 years. You quoted me and then intentionally misrepresented what I said."
It is still factually wrong even if you meant to say 12 consecutive years during some time period from 1990's to the 2006.
You should admit your error.
+++++++++++++
"Ask Nance about his claim that Obama wanted to mandate "150 million plug-in hybrids" on the road by 2015. It had no basis in fact. It was Nance's complete fabrication, actually."
That was a typo and even in that same thread I later said it was a typo.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Or ask him about the "several months" there were "no" sunspots this year. Then ask NOAA, which says there have been at least .5 sunspots EVERY MONTH this year. Nance said sunspots were at an "all-time low," and then linked a page which debunked his own words."
++++++++++++++
I was quoting a science story that said that there were several months of no sunspots. You need to ask them and NOAA why they conflict in that matter. The "all-time low" probably was a poor choice in words. It is a low for the last 50 years. The data that theBS quoted included a timer before the 1800's that had a few years of 0 sunspots. Some people may have doubts that they were accurately monitoring sunspot activity in the 1800's to the same level with today's resources. .5 and 0 Sunspots are not much different. I am not on how they can record .5 sunspots which they have done several times this year. What is a half of sunspot?
++++++++++++++++
"Ask him about his claim that Gibbons announcement of Montero, which took place on 12/24/08, happened BEFORE a letter from Krolicki to the Governor, dated 12/04/08."
This was an error on my part.
++++++++++++++++++++
""Ask him why he refuses to link a letter he says he read from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert... a letter he conveniently uses to attack Masto as being partisan. Curiously, this letter he says he read, he won't link or reproduce."
You have said: "I read her letter, too.
It does not go into great details. "
Good job....you found the letter. I know that you had good Internet searching skills.
"This was an error on my part."
Nicely done Jim.
"It is still factually wrong even if you meant to say 12 consecutive years during some time period from 1990's to the 2006."
"You should admit your error."
Republicans controlled the House from 1994-2006. How is this not correct? In addition, the Republicans controlled the Senate almost every single year of that. In fact, the one year they did not, the Democrats did not either, as the Democrats had a plurality, not a majority, and the Republicans still had Cheney's tie-breaker vote.
As for your numerous factual misgivings, it should not have taken you 14 hours to admit you were wrong. I notice you have not gone back to those stories to correct the record. You should do that.
As for the letter to Heidi Gansert, I thought you were referring to something else, and I cannot find the letter from Cortez-Masto to Heidi Gansert, so I would appreciate you linking the letter, as well. I would like to read it in it's entirety.
If it does not go into great detail, how are you able to leap to the conclusion that Masto recused herself due to partisanship?
You can't.
I am all for the lottery. I used to live in Arizona and played "Quick Pick" every other friday. 10 bucks a month for a chance at millions. I know I could be doing other things with that money like buying a Starbuck mocha whatever.(I dont drink coffee) or buying some crap from the gadget store in the mall that I will use never. My point is we do a lot of stupid things with our money, but if the proceeds go to something like funding education then I say "be stupid"!
I would love to read the Gansert-Masto letter, Nance.
Please furnish me with a link.
I am beginning to think it does not exist online, since you are so secretive about it. I doubt it implies what you have indicated.
Prove me wrong. Prove your superiority in all things digital. Link the letter.
"It is still factually wrong even if you meant to say 12 consecutive years during some time period from 1990's to the 2006."
"You should admit your error."
You still can not admit your error in this matter. I believe hell will freeze over before you admit that you are wrong.
It is not my job to provide any of you the resources that are out there. If you can't not find the letter....tough.....it means that you are lacking the skill to find the letter.
"As for the letter to Heidi Gansert, I thought you were referring to something else"
What letter are you talking about that came from Cortez-Masto that you are referring to and claimed to have read?
An out-and-out set of lies from theBS:
"How many times have you been wrong in the past six months, Nance? When you announced Hillary would be the nominee? When you announced McCain would win when he picked Palin? "
I never announce either item.
Um, I'm following your lead. I'm going to ignore you for half a day and then admit all of my errors.
Please check back later, jfnance32.
As for the letter, I read the small paragraph at the end of that article, I have not seen the entire letter.
You said you read the whole letter, so I would like to read it too, since you seem to think it proves your allegation that Catherine Cortez-Masto is protecting Loux.
Thanks!
I guess you are going to admits your errors tonight or tomorrow.
Okay, so now: where's that letter?