Liar of the Year-

[B...@onramp.net]

Actually of the Century.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-vs-time-magazine-disputes-president-s-person-year-claims-n823861/

[Dene]

Yawn.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-26 8:33 AM, Dene wrote:
> Yawn.
>

Yeah....

...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
all the time?

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
> Dene wrote:
>> Yawn.
>
> Yeah....
>
> ...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
> all the time?

I'm waiting on all of the "tax cut!" promises, since as of the last bill, the
real repercussions are that its a "borrow and spend".

For example, for all households, any supposed "savings" needs to be
normalized against the simple per capita increase in deficit. Simply put
and in round numbers, if your tax bill doesn't go down by more than $2K/yr
(family of four), you're not really getting a tax cut: it's an increase that's being
hidden by the planned increase in deficit spending.

Oh, and as per the drafts, do also make sure to run your estimates on personal
income taxes for after year 7, as breaks for individuals are scheduled to expire.
For example, the plan's for the current rates to kick back in, but not the personal
exemption, which raised your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by ~$10K/couple.
Yes, this is a higher rate at a higher AGI. Tired of "winning" yet?


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:07:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

And he is called on it by one of the most respected magazines i

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:07:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

And this time called on it by one of the most respected magazines in
the world. Then crickets from the liar. He has no morals or shame.

[John B.]

...or accomplishments. Most presidents have their major legislative
successes in their first year in office. Ten months into his, Trump
has accomplished absolutely nothing.

[Dene]

uoted text -

...or accomplishments. Most presidents have their major legislative
successes in their first year in office. Ten months into his, Trump
has accomplished absolutely nothing.

Talk to me after this month.

Btw...your pretty hero accomplished no major legislation his first year. Ocare...his only major legislative accomplishment was in the 2nd year.

After that, he showed his leadership by accomplishing nothing...but he sure looked pretty.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-26 3:29 PM, Dene wrote:
> uoted text -
> ...or accomplishments. Most presidents have their major legislative
> successes in their first year in office. Ten months into his, Trump
> has accomplished absolutely nothing.
>
> Talk to me after this month.

So "this month"...

..not 100 days...

...not 200?

[Dene]

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:38:05 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > Dene wrote:
> >> Yawn.
> >
> > Yeah....
> >
> > ...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
> > all the time?
>
> I'm waiting on all of the "tax cut!" promises, since as of the last bill, the
> real repercussions are that its a "borrow and spend".

Easy to nitpick. Let's hear your brilliant solution.

> For example, for all households, any supposed "savings" needs to be
> normalized against the simple per capita increase in deficit. Simply put
> and in round numbers, if your tax bill doesn't go down by more than $2K/yr
> (family of four), you're not really getting a tax cut: it's an increase that's being
> hidden by the planned increase in deficit spending.
>
> Oh, and as per the drafts, do also make sure to run your estimates on personal
> income taxes for after year 7, as breaks for individuals are scheduled to expire.

Expire but they will be renewed, just like the Bush tax cuts were.

> For example, the plan's for the current rates to kick back in, but not the personal
> exemption, which raised your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by ~$10K/couple.
> Yes, this is a higher rate at a higher AGI. Tired of "winning" yet?

Tired of your whining...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-26 4:59 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:38:05 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Dene wrote:
>>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> Yeah....
>>>
>>> ...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
>>> all the time?
>>
>> I'm waiting on all of the "tax cut!" promises, since as of the last bill, the
>> real repercussions are that its a "borrow and spend".
>
> Easy to nitpick. Let's hear your brilliant solution.

Again. Not personally having a solution doesn't preclude one from seeing
the flaws in someone else's plans.

>
>> For example, for all households, any supposed "savings" needs to be
>> normalized against the simple per capita increase in deficit. Simply put
>> and in round numbers, if your tax bill doesn't go down by more than $2K/yr
>> (family of four), you're not really getting a tax cut: it's an increase that's being
>> hidden by the planned increase in deficit spending.
>>
>> Oh, and as per the drafts, do also make sure to run your estimates on personal
>> income taxes for after year 7, as breaks for individuals are scheduled to expire.
>
> Expire but they will be renewed, just like the Bush tax cuts were.

Riiiiiiiiight.

So why don't they just make them permanent to begin with?

[Carbon]

On 11/26/2017 07:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-11-26 3:29 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>> ...or accomplishments. Most presidents have their major legislative
>> successes in their first year in office. Ten months into his, Trump
>> has accomplished absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Talk to me after this month.
>
> So "this month"...
>

> ...not 100 days...
>
> ....not 200?


Whatever it is, it needs to be fast to get in ahead of the next round of indictments.

[John B.]

You are completely full of shit.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:26:08 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-11-26 3:29 PM, Dene wrote:
>> uoted text -
>> ...or accomplishments. Most presidents have their major legislative
>> successes in their first year in office. Ten months into his, Trump
>> has accomplished absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Talk to me after this month.
>
>So "this month"...
>
>..not 100 days...
>
>...not 200?
>

This month is only 4 more days. What in hell could be expected of
this pompous ass? Maybe he'll own up to all of those 16 sexual
assault charges levied against him. That would be an accomplishment.

[Alan Baker]

You know that in 5 days, he'll be saying "talk to me after December".

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:01:50 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-11-26 4:59 PM, Dene wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:38:05 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> Dene wrote:
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah....
>>>>
>>>> ...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
>>>> all the time?
>>>
>>> I'm waiting on all of the "tax cut!" promises, since as of the last bill, the
>>> real repercussions are that its a "borrow and spend".
>>
>> Easy to nitpick. Let's hear your brilliant solution.
>
>Again. Not personally having a solution doesn't preclude one from seeing
>the flaws in someone else's plans.
>

His standard retort when at a loss for a sensible response. Notice he
never has a "brilliant solution' when he asks for one. Depending on
Trump is a sickness.

[Alan Baker]

I don't recall his "brilliant solutions" every time he criticized Obama.

Weird, huh?

:-)

[-hh]

Greg wrote:
>On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:38:05 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>> > Dene wrote:
>> >> Yawn.
>> >
>> > Yeah....
>> >
>> > ...what does it matter if the leader of your country is liar pretty much
>> > all the time?
>>
>> I'm waiting on all of the "tax cut!" promises, since as of the last bill, the
>> real repercussions are that its a "borrow and spend".
>

>!Easy to nitpick. Let's hear your brilliant solution.

You haven't heard me talk of Keansian principles enough? How about you
just go try to find what business loopholes are being proposed to be closed.

>> For example, for all households, any supposed "savings" needs to be
>> normalized against the simple per capita increase in deficit. Simply put
>> and in round numbers, if your tax bill doesn't go down by more than $2K/yr
>> (family of four), you're not really getting a tax cut: it's an increase that's being
>> hidden by the planned increase in deficit spending.
>>
>> Oh, and as per the drafts, do also make sure to run your estimates on personal
>> income taxes for after year 7, as breaks for individuals are scheduled to expire.
>
> Expire but they will be renewed, just like the Bush tax cuts were.

Fact is, is that they can't get permanent without bipartisan support. And adding
to the debt today violates basic Keansian economic principles ... but you've heard
my fiscal conservatism posture from me many times before.

>> For example, the plan's for the current rates to kick back in, but not the personal
>> exemption, which raised your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by ~$10K/couple.
>> Yes, this is a higher rate at a higher AGI. Tired of "winning" yet?
>
> Tired of your whining...

No, you're merely tired of people pointing out that you are getting fucked over.

And this isn't even touching on the possibility that your business & livelihood is
likely to implode if the line killing the ACA individual mandate survives. FWIW, I
expect that this year's Open Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising may have taken the numbers
down ... how has Open Season been so far this year vs priors?


-hh

[Dene]

This month is only 4 more days. What in hell could be expected of
this pompous ass? Maybe he'll own up to all of those 16 sexual
assault charges levied against him. That would be an accomplishment.

I meant December.
You must be referring to the asses known as Conyer and Franken?

[Dene]

> Expire but they will be renewed, just like the Bush tax cuts were.

Fact is, is that they can't get permanent without bipartisan support. And adding
to the debt today violates basic Keansian economic principles ... but you've heard
my fiscal conservatism posture from me many times before.

>> For example, the plan's for the current rates to kick back in, but not the personal
>> exemption, which raised your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by ~$10K/couple.
>> Yes, this is a higher rate at a higher AGI. Tired of "winning" yet?
>
> Tired of your whining...

No, you're merely tired of people pointing out that you are getting fucked over.

Leave that BS for the lib circle jerkers in here.

And this isn't even touching on the possibility that your business & livelihood is
likely to implode if the line killing the ACA individual mandate survives. FWIW, I
expect that this year's Open Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising may have taken the numbers
down ... how has Open Season been so far this year vs priors?

It’s doing just fine. Oregon and Washington are reporting above average enrollments. Some people are qualifying for tax credits for the very first time. Those that do pay a very reasonable rate for their health insurance.

[-hh]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:45:38 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> -hh wrote:

> > Greg wrote:
> >> Expire but they will be renewed, just like the Bush tax cuts were.
>
> > Fact is, is that they can't get permanent without
> > bipartisan support. And adding to the debt today
> > violates basic Keansian economic principles ... but
> > you've heard my fiscal conservatism posture from me
> > many times before.

FWIW, even Forbes is raising the alarm now too:


"If it's enacted, the GOP tax cut now working its way
through Congress will be the start of a decades-long
economic policy disaster unlike any other that has
occurred in American history."

"There's no economic justification whatsoever for a
tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment
is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly
considered "full employment"), corporate profits are
at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It
makes no sense to add any federal government-induced
stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic
activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one."

"This is actually the ideal time for Washington to be
doing the opposite....The GOP tax bill will increase
the federal deficit by $2 trillion or more over the
next decade (the official estimates of $1.5 trillion
hide the real amount with a witches brew of gimmicks
and outright lies) that, unless all the rules have
changed, is virtually certain to result in inflation
and much higher interest rates than would otherwise occur."

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/11/19/gop-tax-bill-is-the-end-of-all-economic-sanity-in-washington/>

> >>> For example, the plan's for the current rates to
> >>> kick back in, but not the personal exemption, which
> >>> raised your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by ~$10K/couple.
> >>> Yes, this is a higher rate at a higher AGI.

An updated reference:

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlazaroff/2017/11/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-u-s-tax-reform/>

> >>> Tired of "winning" yet?
> >
> >> Tired of your whining...
> >
> > No, you're merely tired of people pointing out that you
> > are getting fucked over.
>
> Leave that BS for the lib circle jerkers in here.

Oh, so today's attempt at denial is that Forbes is
now a "liberal rag"? Good to know! /S

> > And this isn't even touching on the possibility
> > that your business & livelihood is likely to implode
> > if the line killing the ACA individual mandate
> > survives. FWIW, I expect that this year's Open
> > Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
> > it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising
> > may have taken the numbers down ... how has Open
> > Season been so far this year vs priors?
>
> It’s doing just fine. Oregon and Washington are
> reporting above average enrollments.

Very good to hear.

> Some people are qualifying for tax credits for the
> very first time.

Is this because something changed with the rates?
Or is it something else (such as applying for the
first time)?

> Those that do pay a very reasonable rate for their
> health insurance.

Understood. What's still very much needed is a real
reform on the true expenses that the system is eating
out of the GDP, so that the need for subsidies to the
lower income is reduced. I'm not aware of any Blue
leaders who have actually brought this factor up; are
there actually anyone at present mentioning the elephant
in the room in an actually actuarially correct way?


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

He asked for a "brilliant solution" and you gave yours. Its probable
that he'll say something shitty like "Yawn".

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-27 6:41 AM, Dene wrote:
>
> This month is only 4 more days. What in hell could be expected of
> this pompous ass? Maybe he'll own up to all of those 16 sexual
> assault charges levied against him. That would be an accomplishment.
>
> I meant December.

Nailed it.

[Dene]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:

>
> > > And this isn't even touching on the possibility
> > > that your business & livelihood is likely to implode
> > > if the line killing the ACA individual mandate
> > > survives. FWIW, I expect that this year's Open
> > > Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
> > > it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising
> > > may have taken the numbers down ... how has Open
> > > Season been so far this year vs priors?
> >
> > It’s doing just fine. Oregon and Washington are
> > reporting above average enrollments.
>
> Very good to hear.
>
> > Some people are qualifying for tax credits for the
> > very first time.
>
> Is this because something changed with the rates?
> Or is it something else (such as applying for the
> first time)?

Rates rose through the roof and the selections are half of what they use to be. Many people have to abandon their doctors. Those who qualify for a tax credit pay less. Those who don't get hammered.

> > Those that do pay a very reasonable rate for their
> > health insurance.
>
> Understood. What's still very much needed is a real
> reform on the true expenses that the system is eating
> out of the GDP, so that the need for subsidies to the
> lower income is reduced. I'm not aware of any Blue
> leaders who have actually brought this factor up; are
> there actually anyone at present mentioning the elephant
> in the room in an actually actuarially correct way?

Dunno

[Dene]

"Yawn" is straight out of your playbook. Don't like your own medicine?

[-hh]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:28:41 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>
> >
> > > > And this isn't even touching on the possibility
> > > > that your business & livelihood is likely to implode
> > > > if the line killing the ACA individual mandate
> > > > survives. FWIW, I expect that this year's Open
> > > > Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
> > > > it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising
> > > > may have taken the numbers down ... how has Open
> > > > Season been so far this year vs priors?
> > >
> > > It’s doing just fine. Oregon and Washington are
> > > reporting above average enrollments.
> >
> > Very good to hear.
> >
> > > Some people are qualifying for tax credits for the
> > > very first time.
> >
> > Is this because something changed with the rates?
> > Or is it something else (such as applying for the
> > first time)?
>
> Rates rose through the roof and the selections are
> half of what they use to be.

Before I respond, just what's your assessment for why this happened?

> Many people have to abandon their doctors. Those who
> qualify for a tax credit pay less. Those who don't
> get hammered.

(possible free clue there ... follow the money)

> > > Those that do pay a very reasonable rate for their
> > > health insurance.
> >
> > Understood. What's still very much needed is a real
> > reform on the true expenses that the system is eating
> > out of the GDP, so that the need for subsidies to the
> > lower income is reduced. I'm not aware of any Blue
> > leaders who have actually brought this factor up; are
> > there actually anyone at present mentioning the elephant
> > in the room in an actually actuarially correct way?
>
> Dunno

Just like how the promises for 'tax reform' was promised
to be an elimination of deductions for business to pay
for a big cut the corporate income rates, but today, we
somehow can't find any corporate deductions which have
been eliminated ... right?


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:23:23 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

LOL. No, the "grab 'em by the pussy" POTUS.

[Alan Baker]

Quick difference

Franken apologized for his actions, and called for an investigation of
his own conduct.

[-hh]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:28:41 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:18:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:

> [...]

> > > > And this isn't even touching on the possibility
> > > > that your business & livelihood is likely to implode
> > > > if the line killing the ACA individual mandate
> > > > survives. FWIW, I expect that this year's Open
> > > > Season won't be directly impacted by this, although
> > > > it's likely that the cuts in period and advertising
> > > > may have taken the numbers down ... how has Open
> > > > Season been so far this year vs priors?
> > >
> > > It’s doing just fine. Oregon and Washington are
> > > reporting above average enrollments.
> >
> > Very good to hear.
> >
> > > Some people are qualifying for tax credits for the
> > > very first time.
> >
> > Is this because something changed with the rates?
> > Or is it something else (such as applying for the
> > first time)?
>
> Rates rose through the roof and the selections

> are half of what they use to be...

Agreed, but I was asking for your opinion on _why_
the rates go up so much.

Care to take another stab at it?


-hh

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-27 11:15 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:23:23 -080
>>

>>> On 2017-11-27 6:41 AM, Dene wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>> You must be referring to the asses known as Conyer and Franken?
>>>>
>> LOL. No, the "grab 'em by the pussy" POTUS.
>>
>

> For the record Trump never said he grabbed anyone by the pussy.
>

He said he could do whatever he wanted...

...including "grab[bing] 'em by the pussy".

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:22:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Trump also bragged about walking right up to women and start kissing
them. That's the only thing that Franken did physically. He wasn't
touching the breasts in that picture.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:23:23 -080
> >

> > LOL. No, the "grab 'em by the pussy" POTUS.
> >
>

> For the record Trump never said he grabbed anyone by the pussy.

So what are you claiming? That he was just passing on information he
gleamed from other abusers he befriended?

Trump: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Using Trump lying as a defense?; that's cute.

--
Trump ***Irresponsible, unprofessional and sending the wrong message.***

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> I was spot on, because I am not a mental defective like Liberals are.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

What's the diagnosis, mentally, emotionally and morally defective? Or
couldn't you afford the care you so obviously need.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Oh my word, perhaps Franken should be castigated but in that case Trump
should be castrated. He could not have incriminated himself more as a
repeated and unremorseful abuser.

I truly believe than no-one would genuinely defend that tape unless
they were themselves an abuser.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-27 12:37 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Exacty. He did not say he ever did it.
> He was making a point
> about how women react to power.
>

Except that he also said explicitly that he walks up and kisses women
without their permission...

...and many women have accused him of essentially "grabbing" them as he
described.

[Alan Baker]

> Name them.
>

In chronological order:

Jessica Leeds

Kristin Anderson

Cathy Heller

Temple Taggert McDowell

Karena Virginia

Mindy McGillvray

Rachel Crooks

Natasha Stoynoff

Jessica Drake

Ninni Laaksonen

Cassandra Searles

Oh, and then there are three more that have actually gone to court.

In reverse chronological order:

Summer Zervos

Jill Harth

and Ivana Trump!

Is that enough for you?

Are they ALL supposed to be lying, doofus?

[Alan Baker]

> No, you are. Ivanka Trump refuted the claim.
> Idiot cut and paster.
>

So that one accuser who recanted (for what consideration, one wonders)...

...means all 13 others were lying, doofus?

You asked for a list of their names, and I gave it to you.

[Dene]

The concept is called claims experience. When an insurer receives more claims that income, the insurer must raise the rates to cover the losses and/or reduce benefits (exposure). When an insurer can't catch up to these losses, then it induces the death spiral and eventual insolvency. In Oregon, three companies have become insolvent. One left the state. Another is on watch.

Now why is claims experience so high? Because of blind underwriting and that more sick people are enrolling vs. healthy, young immortals. Picture what would happen to State Farm if the bulk of their insured were bad drivers.

Comprende

[Dene]

Yeah...but did he or was he just bragging?
Are you certain Franken wasn't touching her breasts?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:39 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Mod is looking for any possibility to defend one of the most
reprehensible persons ever. That's a mental deficiency and liberalism
isn't.

[-hh]

Greg wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Dene wrote:

> > > -hh wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Is this because something changed with the rates?
> > >> Or is it something else (such as applying for the
> > >> first time)?
> > >
> > > Rates rose through the roof and the selections
> > >are half of what they use to be...
> >
> > Agreed, but I was asking for your opinion on _why_
> > the rates go up so much.
>
> The concept is called claims experience. When an insurer receives more
> claims that income, the insurer must raise the rates to cover the losses
> and/or reduce benefits (exposure). When an insurer can't catch up to
> these losses, then it induces the death spiral and eventual insolvency.
> In Oregon, three companies have become insolvent. One left the state.
> Another is on watch.
>
> Now why is claims experience so high? Because of blind underwriting
> and that more sick people are enrolling vs. healthy, young immortals.
> Picture what would happen to State Farm if the bulk of their insured were bad drivers.
>
> Comprende

But of course, as you've not done much more than explained Actuarial theory 101.

However, from what I've been reading (I'll look for a good link), there's more to the
story than merely the above. IIRC, it circulated around the market uncertainty risk
of if the Feds were to balk on paying the Insurance Cos the subsidies, as they were
legally still on the hook to provide the insured at the promised (subsidized) rate even
if the Feds cut. As such, they jacked up their rates just in case the Feds stopped paying.

FWIW, I believe that the implications of this should be windfall profits if the Feds don't cut
the subsidies, although they will probably try to bury it in their SEC filings, probably with
discretionary expenses, such as contracts to go,renovate still new offices, etc.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

> That is right, keep walking it back. Another one on the list made
> charges and later dropped them. I could go on, but we both
> already know you got nothing.
>
> Idiot!
>

What I've got is a list of 14 women who all made accusations that Donald
Trump contacted them sexually in ways they did not want.

That's called "sexual assault".

And it completely matches the sense of unfettered privilege he
demonstrated in the video clip.

[Alan Baker]

When combined with the more than a dozen women who've come forward, I'm
sure he wasn't just bragging.

> Are you certain Franken wasn't touching her breasts?

Completely sure. She was wearing a flak jacket.
>

[Dene]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:35:44 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> > > Dene wrote:
> > > > -hh wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Is this because something changed with the rates?
> > > >> Or is it something else (such as applying for the
> > > >> first time)?
> > > >
> > > > Rates rose through the roof and the selections
> > > >are half of what they use to be...
> > >
> > > Agreed, but I was asking for your opinion on _why_
> > > the rates go up so much.
> >
> > The concept is called claims experience. When an insurer receives more
> > claims that income, the insurer must raise the rates to cover the losses
> > and/or reduce benefits (exposure). When an insurer can't catch up to
> > these losses, then it induces the death spiral and eventual insolvency.
> > In Oregon, three companies have become insolvent. One left the state.
> > Another is on watch.
> >
> > Now why is claims experience so high? Because of blind underwriting
> > and that more sick people are enrolling vs. healthy, young immortals.
> > Picture what would happen to State Farm if the bulk of their insured were bad drivers.
> >
> > Comprende
>
> But of course, as you've not done much more than explained Actuarial theory 101.

I try to KISS-->keep it simple, stupid.

> However, from what I've been reading (I'll look for a good link), there's more to the
> story than merely the above. IIRC, it circulated around the market uncertainty risk
> of if the Feds were to balk on paying the Insurance Cos the subsidies, as they were
> legally still on the hook to provide the insured at the promised (subsidized) rate even
> if the Feds cut. As such, they jacked up their rates just in case the Feds stopped paying.
>
> FWIW, I believe that the implications of this should be windfall profits if the Feds don't cut
> the subsidies, although they will probably try to bury it in their SEC filings, probably with
> discretionary expenses, such as contracts to go,renovate still new offices, etc.

Really...windfall profits. That explains why insurers have gone out of business in many states, including the ill conceived Co-ops that ACA sponsored...with our tax money.

Here is another consideration. MLR. Look at this link for a KISS explanation.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/

Got anymore theories?

[Dene]

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:00:44 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> You are completely full of shit.

Brilliant response.
Try to learn to cut n paste.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-27 9:55 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:00:44 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> You are completely full of shit.
>
> Brilliant response.

Coming from you? Really?

[-hh]

Simplicity can be done without ignoring entire swaths of the market influences.

For example, look at how Actuary.org used paragraph headings:

"Major Drivers of 2018 Premium Changes
* UNDERLYING GROWTH IN HEALTH CARE COSTS.
* LEGISLATIVE / REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY.
* RISK-SHARING PROGRAMS FOR HIGH-COST ENROLLEES.
* CHANGES IN THE RISK POOL COMPOSITION AND INSURER ASSUMPTIONS.
* HEALTH INSURER FEE.

<https://www.actuary.org/content/drivers-2018-health-insurance-premium-changes>

And do note that in the above, the only major heading with sub-bullets was
from legislative/regulatory risk, namely:

* LEGISLATIVE / REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY.
* Cost-sharing reduction subsidies.
* Enforcement of the individual mandate.
* Special Enrollment Period and Open Enrollment Period.
* Potential changes to the ACA.

FWIW, note that the above also stated (published July 2017):

"Due to the uncertainty of whether CSRs will continue to be paid, some state
regulators have allowed or even required insurers to build CSR costs into their
premiums. There are different approaches to adjust premiums, either allocating
additional costs solely to silver plans or across all plans....If levied on silver
plans only, premium increases could average nearly 20 percent, over and
above premium increases due to medical inflation and other factors.[2]"

> > However, from what I've been reading (I'll look for a good link), there's more to the
> > story than merely the above. IIRC, it circulated around the market uncertainty risk
> > of if the Feds were to balk on paying the Insurance Cos the subsidies, as they were
> > legally still on the hook to provide the insured at the promised (subsidized) rate even
> > if the Feds cut. As such, they jacked up their rates just in case the Feds stopped paying.
> >
> > FWIW, I believe that the implications of this should be windfall profits if the Feds don't cut
> > the subsidies, although they will probably try to bury it in their SEC filings, probably with
> > discretionary expenses, such as contracts to go,renovate still new offices, etc.
>
> Really...windfall profits. That explains why insurers have gone out of business in
> many states, including the ill conceived Co-ops that ACA sponsored...with our tax money.

Yeah, you've made that claim before - - but does it hold water, such as by
demonstrating that your new start business failure rate is significantly higher
than the normal rate of new business failures?

Your baseline, according to the Small Business Association (SBA), is that 30% of
new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, growing to 50% fail
during the first five years, and at ten years, 66% have failed (Ron Paul's claim of
90% failure doesn't appear well supported).


<https://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/top-6-reasons-new-businesses-fail/>
<https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf>


your "why [many] insurers have gone out of business" metric claim actually

>
> Here is another consideration. MLR. Look at this link for a KISS explanation.
>
> <http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/>

Oh, I've not forgotten the MLR - - not only are there accounting backflips which
can invariably be done to hide money (as always), but with the pro-business
climate of the current administration, don't you think that that waivers for the
MLR won't be soon handed out like cheap candy?


> Got anymore theories?

Oh, it ain't a mere theory that the Capitalist Market hates uncertainty.

And when the States have coaxed them to raise rates (ostensively to try to
forestall losing coverage in their regions) and keeping in mind that it isn't
predominantly the State who pays the bulk of that rate increase ... its a no-brainer
slam-dunk positive financial opportunity for the business that can't be ignored.

Case in point, from your own citation, Maine's approved (2012) waiver had the
outcome where their healthcare insurance companies were allowed to revise
their MLA from an 80% min to a 65% min, which means that the ratio change
of their allowed non-medicals (i.e., overhead & profits) nearly doubled.


Oh, and don't think that the insurers don't know who's buttering their toast,
and is using the provisions of the law to their own fiscal advantage:

"Because many insurers raised prices most sharply on plans that are attractive
to people who receive the most generous subsidies, those unable to get
subsidies may have to shop for plans that are not affected or look beyond
their state marketplaces for lower-priced options."

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/health/aca-insurance-rate-increases.html>


Oh, and in case you want to claim that its just one 'liberal rag' which has
pointed out the contribution of marketplace uncertainty & risks, here's a
report that states that it is the insurers themselves who have stated this
in their official filings:

"The vast majority of insurers included in this analysis cite uncertainty
surrounding the individual mandate and/or cost sharing subsidies as a factor
in their 2018 rates filings. Some insurers explicitly factor this uncertainty into
their initial premium requests, while other companies say if they do not receive
more clarity or if cost-sharing payments stop, they plan to either refile with
higher premiums or withdraw from the market."

<https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/an-early-look-at-2018-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-on-aca-exchanges/>

Similarly,

"Two market influences, in particular, are complicating 2018 rate setting:
the uncertainty surrounding continued funding of cost sharing reduction (CSR)
payments and the question of how the relaxation of the individual mandate will
impact enrollment and risk pools."

<http://health.oliverwyman.com/transform-care/2017/06/analysis_market_unc.html>

"...the administration has offered states only uncertainty about what to expect
in 2018, which has made it difficult to set premium rates. In particular, state
officials are struggling to keep their insurance markets afloat in the face of the
Trump administration’s continued indecision over whether to reimburse insurance
companies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) cost-sharing reduction (CSR) plans."

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/sep/cost-sharing-reduction-payment-indecision>

"Before CSR Cuts, ACA Health Plans Expected Stable Premiums
The Trump Administration’s decision to withhold CSR payments likely
interrupted payers’ plans to keep premium increases relatively stable."

<https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/before-csr-cuts-aca-health-plans-expected-stable-premiums>

And many more similar reports have been published this past year.

For you to have not even mentioned it at all is quite surprising, as I was under the
impression that you're not this ignorant as to what's going on in your profession.


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

> That is right, keep walking it back. Another one on the list made
> charges and later dropped them. I could go on, but we both
> already know you got nothing.
>

We all know you are desperate to defend sexual abuse regardless of the
weight of evidence... guilty conscience much?

[MNMikeW]

> That is right, keep walking it back. Another one on the list made
> charges and later dropped them. I could go on, but we both
> already know you got nothing.
>

> Idiot!

A list from Boingboing no doubt.

[MNMikeW]

Would Pelosi defending Conyers also be a mental deficiency?

[Dene]

For you to have not even mentioned it at all is quite surprising, as I was under the
impression that you're not this ignorant as to what's going on in your profession.

My ignorance is the mistake I’ve made over and over again when I was responding to the RAT’S trolls. Each time I sincerely hoped that I could have a reasonable discussion without rancor but it proved to be impossible. You are no different from him.

One year ago I made the decision to never talk to IT again and now I’m making the same with you. I’m done wasting my time. Foghorn. Dumber. And the RAT are on full ignore. Go circle jerk together. You three idiots deserve each other.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:10:45 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > For you to have not even mentioned it at all is quite surprising,
> > as I was under the impression that you're not this ignorant as
> > to what's going on in your profession.
>
> My ignorance is the mistake I’ve made over and over again when
> I was responding to the RAT’S trolls. Each time I sincerely
> hoped that I could have a reasonable discussion without rancor
> but it proved to be impossible. You are no different from him.

Sorry to be so blunt, but your problem has been that you get
angry at the wrong people. Here, instead of taking personal
responsibility for your ignorance, you're trying to blame those
who have pointed out your ignorance to you.

> One year ago I made the decision to never talk to IT again
> and now I’m making the same with you. I’m done wasting my time.
> Foghorn. Dumber. And the RAT are on full ignore. Go circle
> jerk together. You three idiots deserve each other.

It certainly is your choice to remain ignorant, as invariably,
your life decisions will have consequences for you. Even as
you try to blame those who actually tried to get you to think.

The Republicans have already successfully sabotaged the ACA by
destabilizing the market. Their current attempts to repeal the
individual mandate would create an Actuarially-driven death spiral
to functionally destroy the individual market ... which would also
have a consequence of destroying the careers of the brokers.

If they succeed, don't be surprised if you're out of a job in
two to three years. And I'll merely be a "told you so" footnote.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

Does it matter in this case? It isn't opinion. That group of women
was listed in more than one site. Trump is as guilty as any other
that has been charged and not proven......yet.

[B...@onramp.net]

Conyers hasn't made the statements about his sexual prowess with
women. Trump has.

[-hh]

Bobby wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

> [...]

> >A list from Boingboing no doubt.
>
> Does it matter in this case? It isn't opinion. That group of women
> was listed in more than one site.

Actually, it does matter a little, but not in the fashion that
Mike would expect: because this is published fact, the
particular source does not matter -- although that since Mike has
tried to criticize the source, it leads to a secondary consequence
that Mike has discredited himself because he tried to employ the
old "Shoot the Messenger" fallacy.

> Trump is as guilty as any other
> that has been charged and not proven......yet.

IIRC, he's had multiple out-of-court settlements, which makes
the statistical likelihood of there being additional valid
offenses to be higher (KISS: "Repeat Offender").


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Such as???

[MNMikeW]

You're right. He only paid out a settlement to a woman.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

That's your best is it, Mikey?

[Alan Baker]

You're as predictable as you are contemptible, TITPB

[Alan Baker]

Are you really doing this, Mikey?

Tell me: how many cites would you like for each?

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > Moderate wrote:
> >>
> >> That is right, keep walking it back. Another one on the list made
> >> charges and later dropped them. I could go on, but we both
> >> already know you got nothing.
> >>
> >
> > We all know you are desperate to defend sexual abuse regardless of
> > the weight of evidence... guilty conscience much?
> >

> I defended Franken too.

QED

> His actions seemed worse than Trumps, but
> still not a big deal.

Sure monkeying around for the camera is a lot worse than privately
grabbing pussy. It's the public nature of Frankens misbehaviour you
don't like, obviously.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 8:59 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> It is opinion. Factually wrong as I pointed out.
>

No. It is NOT opinion. All of those women made claims of sexual assault
against Donald Trump.

The fact that one later recanted her claim (for what consideration we
cannot know as the settlement between her and Trump was sealed) doesn't
change the fact she made it in the first place.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> It is opinion.

<sigh> Wrong.

> Factually wrong as I pointed out.

No, actually you didn't. You annotated the list of accusers, that is
all.

You added nothing that changed the correctness of the list, FACT.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> > B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> > >
> >> Conyers hasn't made the statements about his sexual prowess with
> >> women. Trump has.
> >
> > You're right. He only paid out a settlement to a woman.
> >
>

> We paid out the settlement. He used government funds.

It's disgusting that you do...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 12:48 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Moderate wrote:
>>
>>> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>>>>

>>>> We all know you are desperate to defend sexual abuse regardless of
>>>> the weight of evidence... guilty conscience much?
>>>>
>>> I defended Franken too.
>>
>> QED
>>
>>> His actions seemed worse than Trumps, but
>>> still not a big deal.
>>
>> Sure monkeying around for the camera is a lot worse than privately
>> grabbing pussy. It's the public nature of Frankens misbehaviour you
>> don't like, obviously.
>>
>

> There is zero evidence Trump grabbed a pussy.
>

There are the clear statements by more than a dozen women which are
supported by Trump's own statements about having sexual contact with
women without their permission.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 12:51 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> One would be great. So far you haven't produced anything,
> Boingboing boy.


Funny how you didn't actually raise any issue with the names earlier,
isn't it?

Jessica Leeds

<https://www.npr.org/tags/497801344/jessica-leeds>
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html>
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-accused-trump-groping-airplane-doubts-weinstein-backlash/story?id=50532962>

There are lots more.



Kristin Anderson

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-says-trump-reached-under-her-skirt-and-groped-her-in-early-1990s/2016/10/14/67e8ff5e-917d-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html>
<http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/15/kristin-anderson-interview-part-1-sot-ac.cnn>
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-latest-groping-nightclub-kristin-anderson-a7362491.html>

There are lots more.



Cathy Heller

<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/23/donald-trump-sexual-harassment-accusers-harvey-weinstein>
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/donald-trump-cathy-heller/index.html>
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/my-pain-is-everyday-after-weinsteins-fall-trump-accusers-wonder-why-not-him/2017/10/21/bce67720-b585-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html>

There are lots more.


Temple Taggert McDowell

<http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/temple-taggart-donald-trump-erin-burnett-out-front/index.html>
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/28/temple-taggart-donald-trump-gloria-allred-lawsuit>
<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/miss-usa-contestant-details-encounters-trump-n665521>

There are lots more.


Really now, doofus: must I go on?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 12:52 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> False.
>

I what particulars is any part of what I just wrote false, doofus?

All those women DID make claims of sexual assault.

That includes Ivana Trump.

Her later statements don't make her earlier statements go away.

[me]

"Moderate" wrote in message news:ovki98$1gfn$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>One would be great. So far you haven't produced anything,
> Boingboing boy.

So, you have your own, little stalker, Shitstain Baker.

And the little shit is so mouthy, from a great distance.

Otherwise IT might get IT's ugly, chinless face punched in and loose another
tooth....like the last time IT acted up.

[B...@onramp.net]

As I recall it was $27,000. An amount that was said to be for
retirement.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Moderate wrote:
> >
> >> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
> >> >

> >> > We all know you are desperate to defend sexual abuse regardless
> of >> > the weight of evidence... guilty conscience much?
> >> >
> >> I defended Franken too.
> >
> > QED
> >
> >> His actions seemed worse than Trumps, but
> >> still not a big deal.
> >
> > Sure monkeying around for the camera is a lot worse than privately
> > grabbing pussy. It's the public nature of Frankens misbehaviour you
> > don't like, obviously.
> >
>

> There is zero evidence Trump grabbed a pussy.

Idiot!

[DumbedDownUSA]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> As I recall it was $27,000. An amount that was said to be for
> retirement.

260 settlements in 20 years, $17m.

Why make this partisan... it is clearly a huge problem that needs
addressing. You have to question the motivation and morality of people
like Moderate who would prefer to ignore it and say something is
harmless when they have no idea what really happened.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 2:19 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-11-28 12:51 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2017-11-28 8:07 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A list from Boingboing no doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it matter in this case? It isn't opinion. That group of women
>>>>>> was listed in more than one site.
>>>>> Such as???
>>>>
>>>> Are you really doing this, Mikey?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me: how many cites would you like for each?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One would be great. So far you haven't produced anything,
>>> Boingboing boy.
>>
>>
>> Funny how you didn't actually raise any issue with the names earlier,
>> isn't it?
>>
>> Jessica Leeds
>>
>> <https://www.npr.org/tags/497801344/jessica-leeds>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html>
>> <http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-accused-trump-groping-airplane-doubts-weinstein-backlash/story?id=50532962>
>>
>
>

> We know Leeds story is fiction. No airliner in the 70's had
> moveable armrests. They were fixed.

No, actually. We don't know that.

'But a 1979 flight attendant manual furnished by the Braniff Airways
Foundation stated "the arm rests in first class are removable by pulling
up."'

<http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/news/donald-trump-jessica-leeds-armrest/index.html>

[MNMikeW]

Retirement? It was a settlement for being fired for not putting out for
Conyers.

[Dene]

Dem double standard at play here.

[B...@onramp.net]

You seem to be willing to take Trump's denial
why not Conyers' ?

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 4:50:49 PM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
> > As I recall it was $27,000. An amount that was said to be for
> > retirement.
>
> 260 settlements in 20 years, $17m.
>
> Why make this partisan... it is clearly a huge problem that needs
> addressing.

Right on! ALL these assholes in Congress are in the same, "good ole boys club".

Don't you think that after hours and the cameras are off, these freaks go to the same clubs, parties and restaurants? They slap each other on the back and feel so good on how they are fucking the American public and taking with both hands for themselves, and the people who paid to put them there?

Why did Martha Stuart get time while these freaks do worse and get away with it.

Why are the laws different for them?

Congress is rotten to the fucking core.

As for term limits, these are the Freaks who would have to vote it in...and they never will.

Vincit qui se vincit

[John B.]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:53:58 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:36:14 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:

> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:22:36 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 2017-11-27 11:15 AM, Moderate wrote:

> > >> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> > >>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:23:23 -080
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 2017-11-27 6:41 AM, Dene wrote:
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> You must be referring to the asses known as Conyer and Franken?
> > >>>>>
> > >>> LOL. No, the "grab 'em by the pussy" POTUS.

> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> For the record Trump never said he grabbed anyone by the pussy.
> > >>
> > >
> > >He said he could do whatever he wanted...
> > >
> > >...including "grab[bing] 'em by the pussy".
> >

> > Trump also bragged about walking right up to women and start kissing
> > them. That's the only thing that Franken did physically. He wasn't
> > touching the breasts in that picture.
>
> Yeah...but did he or was he just bragging?
> Are you certain Franken wasn't touching her breasts?

If he never did the things he said he did, he wasn't bragging,
he was lying. Given what we've learned about him, why would
anyone doubt he was telling the truth?

[John B.]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:55:19 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:00:44 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > You are completely full of shit.
>
> Brilliant response.
> Try to learn to cut n paste.

It was an appropriate response to what you've been saying over and
over about Obama.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 6:21 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> He never said he grabbed a pussy. Liars.
>

No.

But he said he forced himself on women who didn't want his attentions...

...and there are women who have corroborated that that is exactly what
he did.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:08:38 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

Are you brain dead? That's been established and John didn't say he
did. Learn to read ignoramus.

[Dene]

And what I've said about Obama not passing any major legislation his first year is true.

Also...your hero accomplished nothing his final 6 years, displaying his leadership abilities.

But he sure was cool and GQ!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-28 7:59 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:10:44 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:55:19 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:00:44 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>> You are completely full of shit.
>>>
>>> Brilliant response.
>>> Try to learn to cut n paste.
>>
>> It was an appropriate response to what you've been saying over and
>> over about Obama.
>
> And what I've said about Obama not passing any major legislation his first year is true.

Ummmm... ...no.

It's not.

>
> Also...your hero accomplished nothing his final 6 years, displaying his leadership abilities.

With an absolutely intransigent house and senate, you mean?

[-hh]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-11-28 7:59 PM, Dene wrote:
> >

> > ...

> > And what I've said about Obama not passing any major legislation his first year is true.
>
> Ummmm... ...no.
> It's not.

Just the Stimulus Bill alone was significant. And that was a "First 100 Days" accomplishment.

> > Also...your hero accomplished nothing his final 6 years, displaying his leadership abilities.
>
> With an absolutely intransigent house and senate, you mean?

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc>

Expect that the next claim from "Spin Doctor" Greg to be that Obama was to blame
for failing to make a vacant Supreme Court judge appointment in 2016.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc>



-hh

[MNMikeW]

Denial? This was about your incorrect retirement statement.

[MNMikeW]

Looks like Matt Lauer was ousted at NBC last night.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

> >
> > Just the Stimulus Bill alone was significant. And that was a
> > "First 100 Days" accomplishment.
>

> The Stimulus was a very expensive disaster. Nice revisionist history.

Idiot.

Take some English comprehension lessons and learn to write one thing
worth reading each day.

[B...@onramp.net]

Which is as believeable as Trump's denials.

[B...@onramp.net]

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:53:33 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>Looks like Matt Lauer was ousted at NBC last night.

That's a real shock. There had to be un doubtable facts for such a
quick dismissal.

[Alan Baker]

But far more importantly, why did Mikey feel the need to bring it up?

Will his misdeeds make those of others matter less?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:01:28 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-11-29 8:53 AM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:53:33 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Looks like Matt Lauer was ousted at NBC last night.
>>

>> That's a real shock. There had to be undoubtable facts for such a

>> quick dismissal.
>>
>
>But far more importantly, why did Mikey feel the need to bring it up?

Its news Alan and apropos to our general line of discussion.

>
>Will his misdeeds make those of others matter less?

I don't think that was Mike's intent.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-29 9:15 AM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:01:28 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-11-29 8:53 AM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:53:33 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Looks like Matt Lauer was ousted at NBC last night.
>>>
>>> That's a real shock. There had to be undoubtable facts for such a
>>> quick dismissal.
>>>
>>
>> But far more importantly, why did Mikey feel the need to bring it up?
>
> Its news Alan and apropos to our general line of discussion.

That's not the way I saw it.

>>
>> Will his misdeeds make those of others matter less?
>
> I don't think that was Mike's intent.

I think that was exactly his intent.

The discussion was about the liar Trump is and Mike has done nothing BUT
tried to deflect from and minimize that fact.

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:01:28 -0800, Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-11-29 8:53 AM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:53:33 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Looks like Matt Lauer was ousted at NBC last night.
>>>
>>> That's a real shock. There had to be undoubtable facts for such a
>>> quick dismissal.
>>>
>>
>> But far more importantly, why did Mikey feel the need to bring it up?
>
> Its news Alan and apropos to our general line of discussion.
>>
>> Will his misdeeds make those of others matter less?
>
> I don't think that was Mike's intent.

The pipsqueak of the north trying to be relevant again I see. Yes, I
mentioned it as we were discussing the current harassment landscape and
noticed another was caught up in it.

Baker is not bright enough to see that.

[Alan Baker]

Really?

Is that why you brought up Conyers when the subject was Trump?

You and your ilk are forever saying I won't take a stand, so tell us
all, Mikey:

Where do you stand on the many accusations that have been made against
Trump?

Are they all lying?

[Dene]

So lets review the scorecard.

Those on the liberal side who are currently in trouble with sexual impropriety...

Lauer
Conyer
Franken
Charlie Rose
Weinstein

Those on the conservative side..

Judge Moore (alleged...nothing proven)

No wonder the RAT is getting testy.

[MNMikeW]

Add Garrison Keillor.

>
> Those on the conservative side..
>
> Judge Moore (alleged...nothing proven)
>
> No wonder the RAT is getting testy.
>
>

Well, Trump could be in this category.

[Alan Baker]

But him and Moore you'll grant the benefit of any doubt, while just
assuming the guilt of the "liberal side"....

[Dene]

Which is why you and I said "current."
If you add Trump, then we have to do Bill Clinton, of whom there is no doubt. The blue dress is in the Smithsonian.
With Trump, it is allegations and braggadocio.

Bottom line...lottsa of lecherous liberals out there.

[Alan Baker]

Bottom line... your standard of proof varies with the ideology of the
accused.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:09:15 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

When one's basic principles depend on politics they're flawed.