The biggest lie I can think of in politics today is that government has anything to do with helping the lower/middle classes.

I'm all for social welfare programs--in working forms completely unlike what we have today--but our fascist government harms the poor far more than it helps them.

Hahaha that's very different than "rain barrels!" And yeah, I can see some legitimate purpose to laws that regulate that sort of thing.

He's not even stating what claims he disagrees with. In essence, he's not disagreeing with anything I said. He's just vaguely whining about me. It's spam and you should be deleting it until he actually talks about the topic. That's what hurts discourse; toleration of trolling and inane ad-hominem attacks.

I'm very clear about what I disagree with and cite sources as much as I feel is necessary to make my case. Considering that Key and Einstein are trolls who won't even disagree with anything specific I say, let alone cite sources, the amount of citation necessary is low.

The outside observer can see that I am clear in stating what factual claims I disagree with. The outside observer can see that I am clear when I find fault in another's logic.

I'm not going to cite sources for my claim that water contains hydrogen and oxygen unless someone disputes it. Taking the time to do that would be feeding trolls. I'll cite sources for my statements when people actually disagree with any of those statements. I'm not going to cite sources for every detail I mention because a troll vaguely whines.

You shouldn't use the phrase "fact checking." It's only used by dishonest hacks. If a journalist/blogger/academic says something, it should be honest. If it's a factual claim, that claim should stand up to scrutiny, or, upon such scrutiny exposing fraud, the journalist/blogger/academic should be ignored as the dishonest hack he/she is.

While all arguments over contested material should all have sources cited, what is contested is established by scrutiny and disagreement. In the absence of any disagreement, it's not even established what is contested.

I don't even know what I should be providing evidence for.

"When the health care law was passed, it required states to provide Medicaid coverage for adults between ages 18 and 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, regardless of their age, family status, or health."
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-my-s … -medicaid/

"Visualizing Health Policy: Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act"
http://kff.org/infographic/visualizing- … -care-act/

"Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, as of December 11, 2013"
http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indi … -care-act/

Okay, so I've established that the ACA increases Medicaid enrollment. I don't know if that was ever disputed--nobody was kind enough to actually do anything but personally attack me--there's just vague whining that I was wrong. About something. What exactly was a secret. But maybe they didn't know what HealthCare.gov says on its own website--that the ACA included a requirement that Medicaid programs cover more people.

Or maybe Medicaid's solvency was questioned? I said the thing would go broke and reimburse healthcare providers even less money for services. A silly thing to question, since Medicaid already reimburses healthcare providers so little that many don't accept it.

"Medicaid already suffers from serious problems, including perpetual cost overruns, doctors who increasingly refuse to accept patients covered by the program, and low quality of care. Expanding Medicaid will only exacerbate these issues -- while doing little to improve the health of the people it covers."

"Medicaid patients often suffer from constrained access to care. Technically, they're "insured" -- but they can't find anyone to treat them."

"That's because fewer doctors are participating in the program. Between 2010 and 2011, a staggering 33 percent of doctors decided not to accept new Medicaid patients, chiefly because the program's reimbursement rates are incredibly low -- and often don't cover the cost of treatment."

"Last year, less than 70 percent of American doctors participated in Medicaid."

"Consequently, current beneficiaries have difficulty finding a physician who will accept their coverage. Once they do, they may have to wait a long time to see the doctor."

"Expanding the program will only exacerbate this state of affairs. In Massachusetts, for instance, which launched an Obamacare-style expansion of Medicaid on its own several years ago, just 66 percent of internists and 70 percent of family physicians accepted the state's Medicaid plan, according to a 2013 survey. In some counties, just 30 percent of family doctors take Medicaid."

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_2 … are-access

Now that's a lot of material to support my unchallenged claims that the ACA expands medicaid and that medicaid sucks. If I do this for every thing I reference in passing in a post, my posts will be ridiculously long and convoluted and no third party is going to want to read it. This post is a demonstration of your ridiculous double standard.

I should only reasonably be finding, citing, and quoting sources to support references which are actually disputed. In order for that rational debate to take place, someone disagreeing with me will have to actually challenge something I say. Which nobody here has done.

The burden is yours to remove trolling spam posts from the forum which do not challenge anything anyone has said, but whine and attack posters. Remove those, and it'll be clear to all third parties that nobody is actually disagreeing with me. Just whining and ad-hominem attacking me, which is of course fallacious in addition to violating the forum's rules.

All that would remain would be actual challenges to facts and claims, to which I would respond as I did above to the hypothetical challenge to my claim that the ACA expands medicaid and that medicaid budget problems make it suck.

You need to make the forum better for third parties, not me. I'm only going to support claims that anyone challenges with citation and quotation. No third party wants to see me cite evidence for absolutely everything I mention. That'd be ridiculous. They want to see contested material supported/disputed. And that requires someone actually challenge something, which hasn't happened here.

100 years is nothing in geological or climate terms.

Your problem is epic ignorance of the topic. You're just rambling:

That's not how science works. We don't arbitrarily create expectations. We observe data and form theories. We then test those theories.

Many theories have been programmed into computer simulations and tested. None have shown any value.

Firmly establishing that we don't know what to expect. But you don't know this. And you're rambling anyway.

Your theory is absolutely ridiculous childish "science." It's not science at all. Its scope and data are SO limited that it's laughable. You are obviously ill-equipped to judge my logic. It's all well and good that you don't understand why such a limited and base observation is not real science, but your arrogance in accepting it without being aware of your lack of education is neither my fault, nor reason for even more arrogant proclamations that I am illogical.

Thousands of scientists? I thought less than 200 signed off on that garbage man caused nonsense with government funding motivations. Your supposed "majority" is like 130 scientists who signed a letter saying "please give us more money, we'll say whatever you want to help you get more power and tax revenue!"

That's not what "majority" means. And it's not science.

Wow. He was serious.

No knowledge heating trend which has been going on for thousands of years ago. Or that CO2--which he blames for the supposed heating trend caused by man--has historically risen after temperatures, suggesting it's more a result, not cause of, climate changes.

Why are you sharing your opinion on the topic, Key? You know absolutely nothing about it. Your positions are completely arbitrary. You offer absolutely no evidence whatsoever for anyone to consider. Your posts are spam without pretense of being anything else.

What is this nonsense? "cycle event"? That doesn't mean anything.

Again, incoherent and doesn't mean anything. Facts are established through significant evidence and a lack of contrary evidence, not "linked through the theory" blah blah blah blah.

The earth was warming before mass production/the '40s too, so that evidence--it's not a theory, look up the words--is hardly conclusive.

What is this, kindergarten politics? "It kept getting warmer after mass production picked up, so it's PROVEN that we're causing warming!" is completely irrational. It's not even an argument. Spamming talking points that don't make sense is not discourse.

No, no. Keep going. We love it when 2 trolls mate.

Awwww. But it doesn't show that, since the amount of rainwater trapped by man is statistically (and absolutely) insignificant! Clearly, those lawmakers didn't act on behalf of "nature."

My point stands. You're a hypocrite. Your reference was off-topic. And you don't know anything about conservation.

Furthermore, this thread is not a serious discussion of "climate change," so I can hardly hijack it.

I didn't dismiss it based on the font. That's why so much text followed that humorous, albeit perhaps a bit truthful, bit.

It doesn't talk about "the BT experiment." In fact, there is no such thing as "the Bt experiment." You're rambling about nothing.

I'm not interested in equivocating over language. "[P]otentially deadly at levels above 270 milligrams per kilogram" is very "toxic" compared to oxygen. Of course the human body isn't used to breathing in 100% oxygen.

I was obviously referring to relatively high levels of toxicity compared to absolutely no toxicity when a toxin is not present. ie, The toxins present in many GMOs are more harmful than the lack of them. I'm not seeing you present an argument otherwise. I'm just seeing a lot of spam to avoid addressing what I've actually posted.

The fact that carbon dioxide is toxic to mammals in high enough concentrations is not somehow an argument that cyanide is not toxic, or that "toxic" doesn't mean anything.

You're just desperately making false claims because the truth is, we know these plants produce things which are harmful. It's a fact.

I'm done with my community service for the week. Nobody else is going to take the time to correct someone who doesn't know the difference between genetic engineering and crop selection.

The Bt toxin used in GMO corn, for example, was recently detected in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, with possibly harmful consequences.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/tw … hy-wont-us

No worries! It's just poison in our bodies. A hundred million haven't dropped dead as a proven result, so let's keep it up and contaminate all the corn on the planet. It's just women and children.

A second objection concerns genetic contamination. A GMO crop, once released in the open, reproduces via pollination and interacts genetically with natural varieties of the same crop, producing what is called genetic contamination. According to a study published in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Bt corn has contaminated indigenous varieties of corn tested in Oaxaca, Mexico."

It's nothing to be concerned with! BT is good for men, women, and their children! The fact that this stuff spreads like a plague is no big deal! The earth wasn't good enough before; we're just making it better with new poisons in our food supply!

Third, a GMO, brought into natural surroundings, may have a toxic or lethal impact on other living things. Thus, it was found that Bt corn destroyed the larvae of the monarch butterfly, raising well grounded fears that many other natural plant and animal life may be impacted in the same way.

Naw, Einstein says it's okay! Ignore all evidence of harm! Einstein said it's okay!

He admittedly hasn't read a single study on the matter, but we can trust in his faith.

Fourth, the benefits of GMOs have been oversold by the companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, that peddle them. Most genetically engineered crops are either engineered to produce their own pesticide in the form of Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt) or are designed to be resistant to herbicides, so that herbicides can be sprayed in massive quantities to kill pests without harming the crops. It has been shown, however, that insects are fast developing resistance to Bt as well as to herbicides, resulting in even more massive infestation by the new superbugs. No substantial evidence exists that GM crops yield more than conventional crops. What genetically engineered crops definitely do lead to is greater use of pesticide, which is harmful both to humans and the environment.

Nobody read the above! Avert your eyes! Einstein says they're good!

If people stop being so stupid and irresponsible they have children they can't feed, we can avoid that problem long before any possible wars over food.

The fact is that there's a lot of undeveloped land in this world, not being used for housing or farming or anything else. I'll be the first to advocate preserving a whole lot of that land in its natural state, but the notion that the earth will soon be unable to support its population is plain wrong.

I really hate reading some half-cocked idea with no basis in reality being thrown around in public because some fool heard it once and it sounded compelling. You can't respect people who don't respect themselves.

You want millions of people harmed by GMOs as evidence? How are our cancer and organ failure rates? Start looking at the diets of those people. 25% of deaths in the USA are from cancer, and that's only because we have so many unhealthy people who ruin their hearts and livers and brains before cancer has a chance to take them.

The notion that you understand math, science, research, or statistics is ridiculous. You didn't read the last study I linked on the topic; you rambled about problems that the study might have with its methodology (none of which it did). I've linked evidence, you've failed to refute it or respond to it in any way. Academic/scientific research is math. I've cited it. You haven't. You're spamming.

Complete nonsense. And this is why I'm ignoring your spam.

I'd post links to studies, but you made it clear you're not capable of reading or comprehending academic or scientific work the last time the topic was raised.

Maybe you should accept that you don't know what you're talking about and stop lying.