babe's Fact-Checking Service

[babe]

You can still choose who you get your health care from in Universal health care. Facilities can still operate privately.


Source please



True dat buddy, good thing no one here wants that or is an option on the table for what would happen.


Come on you cant expect people to even begin to take you serious when you throw crap out like this. I know I know you have some silly definition of the word but its still not applicable or remotely correct.

babe's definition of fascism......

fascist: one who advocates a government run by influential elites, such as industrial/corporate/cultural leaders or experts in contradistinction to representatives elected by and loyal to the common people.

Merriam-Webster's definition of fascism:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
:a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge

I don't see an important distinction between the UN sort of globalism and practically any other government, except the Constitutional government formed by our forefathers in the United States, and perhaps the remnants of British common law.

Ever been to any third-world country, bro?

 

[babe]

You can still choose who you get your health care from in Universal health care. Facilities can still operate privately.


Source please



True dat buddy, good thing no one here wants that or is an option on the table for what would happen.


Come on you cant expect people to even begin to take you serious when you throw crap out like this. I know I know you have some silly definition of the word but its still not applicable or remotely correct.

The massive regulations under Obamacare pretty well wiped out significant differences between variously-owned medical care services, and pretty well established a center of power in the industry capable of running anyone out of the business, without recourse.

I call it a "King of Hill" struggle to see who wins the final nod from Gov to be the last man standing in medical services....

I suppose the NY Times has not run a story on the legislative process. Call your senators or representatives and ask them how the sausage is made. Or maybe you could think, and realize, that campaign donations and lobbyist perks might actually give some people a seat at the table.

Common sense would tell you no congressman, Senator, or their staff workers, or any President, has enough expertise or understanding of the industry to write a bill like Obamacare. Some influential politicians from both parties had hot wires/cell phone waves going for some time with representatives of the industry. Staff folks from both sides got together and worked on it across many months. The product was kept safe in some office file or desk drawer until the time was ripe for getting it passed....meaning in the middle of night, before many concerned legislators could even read it, when significant dissenters were at home for Christmas.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I thought in the past you have claimed to be a scientist. This cant be true though.

The "news" material I know is highly selected, as are the reporters who have the job of gathering material and organizing the presentations.

Again this is one of the issues. If you simply go off of your anecdotal evidence it will often be wrong. As is the case here. This is generally your response when presented with actual data and information.

everyone has a point of view, hence a "bias", even snopes and Factcheck and other services that attempt to present a credible report on any political controversy.

That is correct. Everyone does. Good journalist put that aside and report. Those are the good journalist. Good editors spot those biases that slip in and they take them out. Yes, some still slips in. Again there is a big big difference between a paper like NYTimes that might have a little bias slip in here and there compared to Fox News, Breitbart, all those people who dont report news but scream opinions that you seem to like is that those are not just bias those are people with an agenda that put their information out through that agendas filter. That is a huge huge difference. Those are much more similar in nature to shows like the Daily Show or SNL's news bit that have an agenda to be funny and they filter all their news through that filter and throw in some opinions with it.

In short, as good as you have done in presenting the case for the media, I think Sean Hannity has done better research and reporting over the past two years. And yes, I like his bias.

Again that is just silly. He isnt not a journalist and does not attempt to give news. He simply gives his opinions. He also has been proven over and over to lie on his show and spread false rumors that he knows are false to rile up his audience members like you with false conspiracy theories. A lot of the facts or stats he gives are warped or outright lies. He is not a respectable journalist or researcher in any way by any reputable source or person. Are you someone that thinks his show is a good balance because they have a "democrat" on the show? Sean Hannity equivalent on the left is Bill Maher.

he TV media and the radio media diverge, so if you count up all the references in both you can get some "balanced" statistic

TV media was not included what I showed. So that is a pointless response. Regardless even if you take the media groups individually that you list they come out the same. CNN(which is a lesser quality news organization but still not anywhere as bad as Fox news/breitbart) aired more stories about Trump than Clinton during the campaign. More of Trumps stories were positive than Clintons. So you can keep making this claim but actual facts are against you. You are basing your information on the brief amount of times you watched them and that is your opinion.

we have a sort of fascist establishment

Again these types of claims do not in any way help your argument. They definitely hurt your claims.

But they have lost a lot of respect because so many people, like me, can see the bias in their faces and tones and can see the plainly obvious fact of who they support.

You are reading too much into something you are making up. I think you might be paranoid. This is a silly claim. I promise many of them are conservative as well as liberal. They are all individuals with many many view points.

you are likely under the sway of very determined "influence" from elitists.

How many people do you think this fits the mold? Everyone except you and the folks at Fox New, Air America and Breitbart you listen to?

Alright I think I have spent enough time with this thread. This feels an awfully lot like responding to a troll. But it is nice to get some information out there to correct some really false information. Although frankly me responding to your posts probably gets more people to actually read your posts. I get the feeling people skip over them more often than not. Partially due to length and partially due to rambling, kind of like this post.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The massive regulations under Obamacare pretty well wiped out significant differences between variously-owned medical care services, and pretty well established a center of power in the industry capable of running anyone out of the business, without recourse.

I call it a "King of Hill" struggle to see who wins the final nod from Gov to be the last man standing in medical services....

I suppose the NY Times has not run a story on the legislative process. Call your senators or representatives and ask them how the sausage is made. Or maybe you could think, and realize, that campaign donations and lobbyist perks might actually give some people a seat at the table.

Common sense would tell you no congressman, Senator, or their staff workers, or any President, has enough expertise or understanding of the industry to write a bill like Obamacare. Some influential politicians from both parties had hot wires/cell phone waves going for some time with representatives of the industry. Staff folks from both sides got together and worked on it across many months. The product was kept safe in some office file or desk drawer until the time was ripe for getting it passed....meaning in the middle of night, before many concerned legislators could even read it, when significant dissenters were at home for Christmas.

So none, just your good ole intuition and instinct. Which seems to lead you astray a lot apparently.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Why does the left deny they are totalitarian.

i mean single payer forced healthcare is totalitarian isnt it. one solution for all!


atleast be intelectually honest that you are advocating for a totalitarian position

 

[babe]

I haven't read "Tragedy and Hope" yet, but so far as I'm concerned it is factual that we have a monolithic political establishment led by major financial interests. Some leftists use this idea as their exhibit "A" for social justice. When our "establishment" actually financed Hitler's rise, and built his industry as a way around US legislation like the Sherman Anti-Trust act in the 1930s, I doubt they intended directly to set up for a world war, but if not, this at least should be an example in caution of vesting unrestrained confidence on our professional managerial "establishment" today.

It is human nature to do stuff like that. Nobody needs to have a big plan for the next war. There doesn't need to be thousands of "insiders" all fully informed on the total agenda. We do stuff, we get the consequences. People, particularly the more sociopathic politically ambitious folks, will eagerly go out looking for some angle to feather their own nest or advance their career or enhance their power. People like that are easy to hook and keep on the line if some more astute manipulator sees the opportunity.

The CFR is mostly successful and influential people, leaders in their professions and/or possessing some great talents or amassing great wealth. It would amaze me Trump has indeed failed to join the CFR. Or Mitt Romney. I think even Ted Cruz has. But they permit members to choose whether to have their names on the published membership roll.

One would have to credit the Rockefellers and other leaders of the CFR, and the perhaps higher level analogue in England, for bringing all those people together and furnishing a speaker circuit that is as persuasive as it is.

I just think they are making a colossal mistake trying to supplant US Constitutional principles of government with their top-down governance, which however well-cushioned or gradually imposed, is still totalitarian. "Communitarian" with a few real leaders who let the folks talk as they please while directing them all into the corral.

I do the same thing with my cows. I put hay inside the corral, and talk nice, and sorta let them go in of their own choice, ha ha, carefully closing one gate after another behind them.

Then I send them off to the butcher.

Ron might have some good points about science and "anecdotal" evidence and all, but if it's the truth it is still the truth.

 

[Boris]

I mean it would be easier to take serious if you talked about one organization but when you say "the Media" it means there is no logic or reasoning left.

New York Times is a fantastic news organization with many upstanding excellent journalists. Most journalist aspire to work there because they are great.

Your wrong an for the record I posted bias sources on both ends of the spectrum. Most of what gits quoted here from New York Times an places like The Atlantic are OPINION PIECES not journalism. Most of these rags are highly biased an seek to influence an they do. They have even admitted to it.

Oh an since you are big on studies (no matter how fake an biased) here is Nate Silver's study showing The New York Times an media is liberally biased.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth.../there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/amp/

Do you an [MENTION=4984]Bulletproof[/MENTION] understand what group think is? Liberals don't. You all claim you are better educated then conservatives so yer smarter an wiser. Than someone like Trump comes along an exposed yer uppity attitude fer what it is. "Settled science!" Outrage for this outrage fer that! Every cause is a crisis! Pretend life isn't life!

 

[Ron Mexico]

Your wrong an for the record I posted bias sources on both ends of the spectrum. Most of what gits quoted here from New York Times an places like The Atlantic are OPINION PIECES not journalism. Most of these rags are highly biased an seek to influence an they do. They have even admitted to it.

Oh an since you are big on studies (no matter how fake an biased) here is Nate Silver's study showing The New York Times an media is liberally biased.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth.../there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/amp/

Do you an [MENTION=4984]Bulletproof[/MENTION] understand what group think is? Liberals don't. You all claim you are better educated then conservatives so yer smarter an wiser. Than someone like Trump comes along an exposed yer uppity attitude fer what it is. "Settled science!" Outrage for this outrage fer that! Every cause is a crisis! Pretend life isn't life!

Great article, some good reports and some interesting opinions. Did you read it all?

 

[Boris]

Great article, some good reports and some interesting opinions. Did you read it all?

Yes an the last to paragraphs explain why I love you as a poster as you don't seem ta engage in them tactics er way of thinkin.

 

[babe]

Yes an the last to paragraphs explain why I love you as a poster as you don't seem ta engage in them tactics er way of thinkin.

I think Ron is one of our better respondents. I appreciate the work he did to put together his responses.

I'm a tough sell on a lot of things, even if I see the logic and the effort being made.

The reason I don't just scrape and bow to professionals with a lot of knowledge even balanced thinkers is just this. When there is an agenda behind pushing a particular public consensus, I look at the agenda more than the facts. If the agenda has a problem, the facts don't matter.

global warmists are pushing social justice issues with their facts, a world governance tax base, and picking winners and losers in industry, and I think it's just too much of demand for greater political power, so I am against it on that basis. If we really cared about the planet, we wouldn't try to hijack the issue for causes like that. Besides, the warmist/alarmist stuff is overdone.

The CFR-affiliated media which pushes the globalist agenda and is deliberately de-exceptionalizing the US, shutting down our superior productive enterprise which comes from freedom to be creative unlike any other place on the planet, has taken on Trump because he's poking his little tiny finger in their eyes saying stuff like MAGA. So after they do their damnedest to shut him down, and the people still elected him, they have a lot of "credibility repair" to do. However good Ron's defense, I would never fail to see the intent of the agenda pushers or believe they didn't do what they did. I conclude they have too much vested interest to ever be just believed on anything.

 

[franklin]

alright, kiddies..... here are some Bigs making their cases:

Vladimir Putin speaking on US foreign policy and actions in the Mideast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96k_8ywt22g

http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/...on-club-transcript-of-the-final-plenary-sess/

To which Soros, who funded the overthrow of Russia's next-door pet Ukrainian government in an attempt to drag Ukraine into the EU, has this to say:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-no-ally-against-isis-by-george-soros-2016-02

The START treaty, which the US and Russia relied on in decommissioning many nuclear weapons, included a promise that the EU or the US would not interfere in the Ukraine, where much of Russia's nuclear weapons are located.

Personal sources tell me that the EU sought to include the Ukraine as a stop-gap, last-gasp tactic to avoid financial meltdown, as the Ukraine was considered a rare solvent state, with the capacity to lend stability to it's allies.

Before the Soros gambit in Ukraine succeeded, Russia offer financial incentives to the Ukraine in 2013:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/ukraine-russia-leaders-talks-kremlin-loan-deal

later, in 2015, the aid was linked to a stipulation to keep IMF help out.... it was a war for influence in Ukraine with a price tag.....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...help-hinges-on-imf-deal-idUSBREA240V020140305

In the above persuasion piece, Soros characterizes the conflict to be a race between Russia and the EU to see who will be the "Last Man Standing" in Europe. Soros argues that both Russia and the EU are on the verge of financial collapse. . . .

And Putin won.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/09/14/no-imf-money-for-ukraine-russia-says/#28290f4e7ea9

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/putin-s-ukraine-peace-offer-is-a-trojan-horse

If you will read all that, it will show Soro's claims to be patently false, a stupid attempt to scare us into lining up on his team. It also shows my "personal source" to be clearly wrong as well.

The Ukraine is not a financial plum essential to either the EU or Russia, but a staging ground for Soro's(and others') attempt to create a new war. Putin has called it right. If the UN through Western hegemony blatantly converts an essential element of the START treaty in a historical obsolescence, Putin says it means our world is not run by "new law" but by "no law".

As I've said before, Putin is rational, and he sees things in terms of his national interests. He argues that the US and Russia are natural allies, and he argues against a geopolitical scheme to divide the world against itself along military parameters.

At the present moment, the Ukraine is not going to join the EU, and is rebuilding its relationship with Russia, though very recently there has been some rhetoric by some Bigs that still hold out hope a bit down the road.

Only 30% of Europeans favor the idea, and only 50% of Ukranians. I suppose it's still open for more bidding, financially, as the Bigs of the world jockey for influence, but five EU nations have come out to oppose it.

talk runs every which way. With the Brexit vote, and England out, there is talk of even Russia joining the EU and NATO. Why not? The geopolitical conflict lines were engineered by the snooty Brits for the purpose of dividing the rest of the world up into Balkanized little warring countries to keep anyone from rising above the Brits.

Yes, Putin is right. The US and Russia are natural allies against that obstructionist meddling little set of snoots.

You seem to be the only other poster who understands what triggered the Ukraine event. It's not an unknown in the least but most posters here have never heard of it. The Euro/UK news sources are so much better than ours at this point.

 

[franklin]

YOU RUINED IT!! DAMMIT!!


This was going to be the babe boris and dutch only thread. Why did you have to stick your stupid nose in it?!? This would have been the most entertaining thread on JF. Mods please delete Ron's post and my post to restore balance to the force. TIA

You do realize babe is a real person with a strong moral character? A few of you should feel horrible about the way you treat him and owe an apology.

 

[Gameface]

You do realize babe is a real person with a strong moral character? A few of you should feel horrible about the way you treat him and owe an apology.

For all the jabs he dishes out that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or even his post and in particular ones I consider below the belt, I think I'll hold off on the apologies.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I think Ron is one of our better respondents. I appreciate the work he did to put together his responses.

I'm a tough sell on a lot of things, even if I see the logic and the effort being made.

The reason I don't just scrape and bow to professionals with a lot of knowledge even balanced thinkers is just this. When there is an agenda behind pushing a particular public consensus, I look at the agenda more than the facts. If the agenda has a problem, the facts don't matter.

global warmists are pushing social justice issues with their facts, a world governance tax base, and picking winners and losers in industry, and I think it's just too much of demand for greater political power, so I am against it on that basis. If we really cared about the planet, we wouldn't try to hijack the issue for causes like that. Besides, the warmist/alarmist stuff is overdone.

The CFR-affiliated media which pushes the globalist agenda and is deliberately de-exceptionalizing the US, shutting down our superior productive enterprise which comes from freedom to be creative unlike any other place on the planet, has taken on Trump because he's poking his little tiny finger in their eyes saying stuff like MAGA. So after they do their damnedest to shut him down, and the people still elected him, they have a lot of "credibility repair" to do. However good Ron's defense, I would never fail to see the intent of the agenda pushers or believe they didn't do what they did. I conclude they have too much vested interest to ever be just believed on anything.

Deleted.
I was being an ***.

 

[franklin]

For all the jabs he dishes out that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or even his post and in particular ones I consider below the belt, I think I'll hold off on the apologies.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

I think most of us probably owe an apology to several posters for things we know of directly and things we have no clue we did. I think it's gotten a little overboard in this case.

 

[franklin]

I'm going to do everyone a favor and explain babe's geopolitical skepticism.

Humanity has been engaging in Daes Dae'mar, Game of Thrones, kingdom style politics since the beginning of recorded time. Democratizing the world never changed that. When you act like what babe has to add is utter nonsense because fact xyz, you are basically telling him you don't understand that a geopolitical game is ongoing and events may have a separate meaning than what the authorities are telling us. Those in power are in the know with secret knowledge that you and I are not ever going to be privy too. As such, there is reason to question and speculate.

Basically, Babe's ideas are every bit as rational as anyone who tells you the Iraq war was all about oil. You don't know Daes Dae'mar until you are a player on the Risk board.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm going to do everyone a favor and explain babe's geopolitical skepticism.

Humanity has been engaging in Daes Dae'mar, Game of Thrones, kingdom style politics since the beginning of recorded time. Democratizing the world never changed that. When you act like what babe has to add is utter nonsense because fact xyz, you are basically telling him you don't understand that a geopolitical game is ongoing and events may have a separate meaning than what the authorities are telling us. Those in power are in the know with secret knowledge that you and I are not ever going to be privy too. As such, there is reason to question and speculate.

Basically, Babe's ideas are every bit as rational as anyone who tells you the Iraq war was all about oil. You don't know Daes Dae'mar until you are a player on the Risk board.

Uh no. He repeats verbatim the people he respects and his information comes from them. He trusts the sources that he often sites. He believes fully in what he hears from Breitbart, Air America and many from Fox News. Often the ideas or information he comes in with is ideas I heard on the radio from people like Sean Hannity. Providing information and facts from a variety of sources is not getting it from authorities. It is in fact the opposite.

I appreciate that you are trying to stick up for him but he has explained himself just fine. Babe reminds me of the majority of people I got my poli science degree with in Utah County. They shared very similar views.

Babe will always trust what his own theory or ideas are over any outside information and research. Once he has made up his mind on it he isnt going to view any other information that is not his own as relevant. Those ideas are shaped by the sources he listens to. Its very similar to how my parents view the world and tends to be more common places in rural religious communities. We all do it to some degree though.

 

[franklin]

Uh no. He repeats verbatim the people he respects and his information comes from them. He trusts the sources that he often sites. He believes fully in what he hears from Breitbart, Air America and many from Fox News. Often the ideas or information he comes in with is ideas I heard on the radio from people like Sean Hannity. Providing information and facts from a variety of sources is not getting it from authorities. It is in fact the opposite.

I appreciate that you are trying to stick up for him but he has explained himself just fine. Babe reminds me of the majority of people I got my poli science degree with in Utah County. They shared very similar views.

Babe will always trust what his own theory or ideas are over any outside information and research. Once he has made up his mind on it he isnt going to view any other information that is not his own as relevant. Those ideas are shaped by the sources he listens to. Its very similar to how my parents view the world and tends to be more common places in rural religious communities. We all do it to some degree though.

"Uh no." followed by another sidestepping and continuously misleading character assassination attempt is not a very well thought out retort.

If you actually read babe you know he brings things to the table that nobody else here does. Claiming he's your run of the mill puppet of the rightstream media (I'm copywriting that btw bitches) is as far off base as you can get. He is constantly adding random facts and historical details that most of us are completely unaware of. You can appreciate that, you can tl/dnr it, and you can ignore list it. But, continuously mocking him for it as has been is crossing the line and you too should apologize.

 

[Ron Mexico]

"Uh no." followed by another sidestepping and continuously misleading character assassination attempt is not a very well thought out retort.

If you actually read babe you know he brings things to the table that nobody else here does. Claiming he's your run of the mill puppet of the rightstream media (I'm copywriting that btw bitches) is as far off base as you can get. He is constantly adding random facts and historical details that most of us are completely unaware of. You can appreciate that, you can tl/dnr it, and you can ignore list it. But, continuously mocking him for it as has been is crossing the line and you too should apologize.

Its not side stepping it is addressing it straight forward. I am not assassinating his character. He is the one that claims that is where he gets his info from and who he trusts. I am guessing you dont read a lot of his posts.

I do read his posts, I might be one of the few, they are lengthy and I have heard from many that they skip them. You are mocking me in the same fashion you are claiming I am mocking him.

I generally dont interact with him because he claims to be smarter than others and that we are all blind followers. But when he asks for interaction I sometimes probe and see where it goes. It always goes to the same place. I respect him and think he seems smart. I dont respect how he gets his information and how he draws his conclusions. Just the same as he does not respect how I do the same and has said as much. Its fairly mutual.

I am sure some of my words have been harsher than needed or come of sounding harsher than intended but that is life on a message board. I personally try hard to just post facts and read as many of the other facts people provide as possible even if I dislike their source. I try very hard to only give a hard time to those giving others or myself a hard time.

My assertion of him repeating information from those sources is from him. He claims readily that is who he trusts and gets his info from. He also is very careful to be patronizing towards anyone who disagrees with him, so I think he can handle taking it back.

Frankly he does an okay job of sticking up for himself but I am glad we have you to defend the little guys on here.

 

[LogGrad98]

You do realize babe is a real person with a strong moral character? A few of you should feel horrible about the way you treat him and owe an apology.

I appreciate that fully. I had a nice sit-down with babe and his wife and kids for a bit before I left for Germany. Delightful. babe is smart and witty. But I can also understand that he can get into a weird cycle that tends to spiral down with him and boris and dutch feeding off each other. Frankly it has derailed more than a few threads. I do agree with you that we in general are pretty crappy to each other here, with times when we do band together, so babe, I offer my apology if you took offense to this post.

I can appreciate babe's rants from time to time, and I think he is far more intelligent than many give him credit for. But within the context of dutch (who I think also is a good person who gets too caught up in pushing his agenda) and boris (who is just flat out a troll, let's be real here), it can get to the point where the thread is unreadable. I found it interesting there was a thread in which the 3 of them were the primary participants considering their tendency to feed off each other.