ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Affordable Care Act , donald trump , health care issues , health insurance issues

Reply
Old 21st April 2017, 07:50 PM   #2681
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
An opinion piece on a single election sorely lacking in sources.

From the link:


Maybe you should have actually read them.
You accuse me of not reading them? Did you skip me literally writing the word inconclusive? I can't think of a more apt word to describe the section you quoted.

Now, I said there doesn't appear to be much of an effect
You said there is overwhelming evidence of an effect.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 21st April 2017 at 07:53 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:16 PM   #2682
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Which all had pretty much nothing to do with the conversation that was occurring.

The question was "Why do no politicians promote the option of using the medical insurance premiums paid out now instead of increasing taxes to pay for a UHC?" The answer is that this would require going to Public Single Payer and banning Health Insurance totally and no one has the political clout to do that. You can't have Health Insurance in a system where the premiums people are paying now go to the Single Payer as a Tax, or you are increasing the overall cost of Healthcare, which was what the conversation was about avoiding.
What? Replacing premiums with taxes is at the core of Medicare-for-All plans. That's pretty much what Bernie Sanders was and is promoting. Nobody says you would increase taxes to created single-payer AND keep paying the current premiums to insurance companies.

The Sanders plan:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:25 PM   #2683
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You accuse me of not reading them? Did you skip me literally writing the word inconclusive? I can't think of a more apt word to describe the section you quoted.

Now, I said there doesn't appear to be much of an effect
You said there is overwhelming evidence of an effect.
You are claiming political ads have no effect. That is absurd on its face.

You made an extraordinary claim, you posted some Google drive-by hits to support it. 100 years of Madison Avenue science says you are wrong and I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.

Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:49 PM   #2684
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 21,795
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...-flurry-of-ads

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ical-ads-work/

The first few links that come up when googling the question all say inconclusive or shockingly small effect.
You didn't read your links, did you. The first link most assuredly does not support your claim. It even cites cases where ads made a difference.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:09 AM   #2685
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Why do we have to cut the nea to pay for Healthcare? We can just use the money we are currently pay in premiums.

Cutting the nea is a total non sequitor.
In support of your point, I think it is time to point out my signature.

The US was already spending a higher proportion of its GDP on *public* healthcare than the UK before the ACA came into force.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:52 AM   #2686
Armitage72
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,440
Senate to attempt quick passage of another new health care replacement bill.

Quote:
Once the House passes the Republican health-care bill, it could become law very quickly, Larry Kudlow said on Thursday.

According to sources, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows has "been in discussion and successfully negotiating" with Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, and they have been agreeing on a number of issues, Kudlow reported.

"So for the first time, as this person reported to me, if the House can get a vote next week or soon after, the Senate may jam it right through fast. It won't take weeks and weeks and weeks," the senior CNBC contributor said on " Closing Bell ."

I think I see a problem with these statements Larry.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:03 AM   #2687
zorro99
Critical Thinker
 
zorro99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Senate to attempt quick passage of another new health care replacement bill.




I think I see a problem with these statements Larry.
What health care replacement bill?
__________________
There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.
zorro99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:10 AM   #2688
Armitage72
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,440
Originally Posted by zorro99 View Post
What health care replacement bill?

This one. It looks like it was just put together on the 13th.

The big thing appears to be that states can apply for waivers saying "we don't want to do that" for specific requirements, including the ability to dump people with preexisting conditions into expensive and/or underfunded high risk pools.

According to NPR:

Quote:
The plan "would make coverage unaffordable for many older consumers and would segregate high-cost consumers in coverage that would likely be inadequate," says Timothy Jost, a professor emeritus at Washington and Lee Law School who writes a health policy blog for Health Affairs.

The proposal could also cause premiums to spike for people with medical issues, according to comments posted on Twitter by Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. A person with diabetes could see premiums rise by about $5,600 while someone with metastatic breast cancer could be charged an additional $142,650, he says.

Last edited by Armitage72; Yesterday at 05:14 AM.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:49 AM   #2689
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You are claiming political ads have no effect. That is absurd on its face.

You made an extraordinary claim, you posted some Google drive-by hits to support it. 100 years of Madison Avenue science says you are wrong and I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.

Your claim was extraordinary. You said overwhelming evidence of significant effect with few exceptions.

I said they don't appear to have much of an effect. That is not, "no effect."

Now let's look at what the political scientist in the first link said

Quote:
But do ads actually work? Political scientist Diana Mutz is skeptical.

"There's very little evidence that ads make much of a difference in a presidential campaign," she says. "Most people are shocked when they learn about what the likely effects are relative to the huge amount of campaign resources that gets poured into advertising.

"It's shockingly small bang for the buck when it comes down to it."
I think that is extremely consistent with my claim that there doesn't appear to be much effect.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:53 AM   #2690
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You didn't read your links, did you. The first link most assuredly does not support your claim. It even cites cases where ads made a difference.
I never said ads couldn't make a difference. I said not much effect. Swaying a competitive state by only swaying a surprisingly small number of people with a surprisingly huge amount of ads (the point of the NPR article) is a very tiny effect.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:52 PM   #2691
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,293
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Senate to attempt quick passage of another new health care replacement bill.




I think I see a problem with these statements Larry.
LOL they have bigger problems than Susan Collins if by some small chance the House actually passes the bill.

First is that they are trying to do this as a reconciliation bill so they only need 51 votes. But reconciliation bills are supposed to only be about things related to the budget. Yet they are trying to change Obamacare regulations. So there is a very good chance the Senate parliamentarian would rule that they can't do it as a reconciliation bill. Making it impossible to pass because of the filibuster.

Even if the can do it as a reconciliation bill, they can afford only two defections. And there are like 20 GOP Senators from Medicaid expansion states. Four of them sent a letter to Mitch McConnell saying they won't​ support a bill that guts Medicaid expansion. Tom Cotton has been adamant that Trumpcare would be DOA in the Senate. Rand Paul has said he's against it. He can keep his ideological purity by saying it is too liberal while at the same time not screw over Kentucky which has probably benifited from Obamacare more than any state. I believe Dean Heller from Nevada has come out against it. He's up for reelection in 2018 and presumably doesn't want to all but guarantee he loses his seat for Trump.

Last edited by Tony Stark; Yesterday at 05:54 PM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:42 PM   #2692
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,522
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
You didn't read your links, did you. The first link most assuredly does not support your claim. It even cites cases where ads made a difference.
It is ridiculous for a person to claim that media has no influence on people's opinions.bob is just wrong. He probably believes he was never influenced by media.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:52 PM   #2693
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
It is ridiculous for a person to claim that media has no influence on people's opinions.bob is just wrong. He probably believes he was never influenced by media.
I didn't claim that. I said ", it doesn't appear political ads have much effect.". Not having much effect is not the same as claiming no influence.

Also, you said media, while the discussion was advertisment. That is a strawman.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; Yesterday at 06:03 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:24 PM   #2694
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I didn't claim that. I said ", it doesn't appear political ads have much effect.". Not having much effect is not the same as claiming no influence.

Also, you said media, while the discussion was advertisment. That is a strawman.
Where have I heard this kind of walk back before?

Oh yeah, you and Trump both: claim words meant something else, claim you were only talking about some narrow case...
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:31 PM   #2695
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Where have I heard this kind of walk back before?

Oh yeah, you and Trump both: claim words meant something else, claim you were only talking about some narrow case...
You are the one purposely distorting."not much effect" as no effect.

Skeptic ginger: how much does this cost?

Bob: not much

Skeptic ginger: so it is free!
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:08 PM   #2696
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You are the one purposely distorting."not much effect" as no effect.

Skeptic ginger: how much does this cost?

Bob: not much

Skeptic ginger: so it is free!
And you can link to that quote?

Your analogy is a fail and a non sequitur.

Just admit you were wrong or misspoke or whatever. Move on.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; Yesterday at 09:12 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:41 PM   #2697
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,689
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You are the one purposely distorting."not much effect" as no effect.

Skeptic ginger: how much does this cost?

Bob: not much

Skeptic ginger: so it is free!
I'm sure someone wise once said "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it".

What's your definition of "not much effect". If you look at a total vote and one party wins 47 to 45% and it's determined that the expensive ad campaign "only" got them maybe 3% of the votes, it sounds like a whole lot spent for a mere 3000 votes. If that 3% is what gave the candidate and the party the seat, then that itty bitty "effect" is actually worth quite a bit.

Ads are not as effective as news time. Trump showed us this. But ads do work. As do campaign mailers, personal appearances, canvassing, polling, etc.... all of that is what the campaigns spend on, not just advertising. Does Mia Love think that my vote is worth thirty bucks? That's what she spent... thirty dollars per vote. And that's nothing compared to 2014 when they had half the turnout (off-year elections), when she spent about fifty bucks per vote.

The GOP won (and then held) a prized seat. Think they're unhappy with the 1 or 2 per cent that media advertising got them? It all adds up.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:48 PM   #2698
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And you can link to that quote?

Your analogy is a fail and a non sequitur.

Just admit you were wrong or misspoke or whatever. Move on.
The analogy exactly captures how you attempted to twist my statement "not much effect" to zero effect.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:50 PM   #2699
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The analogy exactly captures how you attempted to twist my statement "not much effect" to zero effect.
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Trump and O'Reilly have this pattern: everyone is twisting my words or they are out to get me.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:54 PM   #2700
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Trump and O'Reilly have this pattern: everyone is twisting my words or they are out to get me.
You literally turned "not much effect" to zero effect. You intentionally misrepresented my position by turning it into a much easier case (having no effect is a ludicrous notion). That is the very essence of a strawman.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:05 PM   #2701
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You literally turned "not much effect" to zero effect. You intentionally misrepresented my position by turning it into a much easier case (having no effect is a ludicrous notion). That is the very essence of a strawman.
By all means, tell us specifically what "not much effect" means. Because I did not equate it to zero effect. I interpreted it to mean you seriously underestimated the effect of political advertising.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:08 PM   #2702
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
By all means, tell us specifically what "not much effect" means. Because I did not equate it to zero effect. I interpreted it to mean you seriously underestimated the effect of political advertising.
Your post number.2683 literally stated the following

Quote:
You are claiming political ads have no effect. That is absurd on its face.
That sounds like you did equate it with zero effect.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:57 PM   #2703
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,474
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Your post number.2683 literally stated the following

That sounds like you did equate it with zero effect.
OK let's review:

Originally Posted by BtC
Now, I said there doesn't appear to be much of an effect
You said there is overwhelming evidence of an effect.
Originally Posted by SG
You are claiming political ads have no effect. That is absurd on its face.
So let's look at where this started:
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't think lobby money is as powerful as you think it is. It seems like the ones that actually have power have sway over voters.

The people who get the most money from X seem like people who were already inclined to favor X in the first place.
If the only effect is that people who were already going to vote for X, will vote for X, how is that more than zero effect?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:03 PM   #2704
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,522
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Also, you said media, while the discussion was advertisment. That is a strawman.
Then you believe advertisement does not influence people. Have you shared this revelation with the billion dollar advertisement industry?
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:10 PM   #2705
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Having those premiums go to the Singer Payer and still having Health Insurance on top increases overall Healthcare spending and defeats the purpose of the original question.
I understand your reasoning and agree to an extent. But as long as it doesn't increase public dollars, I don't see a net loss to the public system. It might be unfair, but Americans don't seem to mind much that the wealthy are in a position to buy certain privileges, i.e. shorter wait times, more generous prescription coverage etc.

I'm sure I am missing nuances but on the surface I don't see a huge problem. If paying to jump the queue is acceptable to the U.S. populace, the social justice issues might be played down. You get a Cadillac, I get a Buick, but both get the job done. I admit I am uninformed about the unintended consequences of such a two-tiered system.

Last edited by Minoosh; Yesterday at 11:11 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:32 PM   #2706
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,293
Doesn't the UK have a two tier system? The NHS covers everyone and is paid for by the government. Then you can buy private insurance (or get it as a benefit if you have a great job) which gives you better service than what the plebes on NHS get.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:11 AM   #2707
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 20,693
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Doesn't the UK have a two tier system? The NHS covers everyone and is paid for by the government. Then you can buy private insurance (or get it as a benefit if you have a great job) which gives you better service than what the plebes on NHS get.
Yes. The private sector is relatively small and almost all critical care is still done by the NHS, but there is a private sector.

Wyld Bird Seed's drummer has the private sector to thank for his new knees.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:59 AM   #2708
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Then you believe advertisement does not influence people. Have you shared this revelation with the billion dollar advertisement industry?
What are you talking about? Let's take another look at the part you left off from the post you quoted

Quote:
I didn't claim that. I said ", it doesn't appear political ads have much effect.". Not having much effect is not the same as claiming no influence
I'm literally not claiming that advertisement doesn't influence people.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:00 AM   #2709
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,522
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What are you talking about? Let's take another look at the part you left off from the post you quoted



I'm literally not claiming that advertisement doesn't influence people.
Just that there isn't enough influence to be significant, right?
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:07 AM   #2710
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OK let's review:




So let's look at where this started:
If the only effect is that people who were already going to vote for X, will vote for X, how is that more than zero effect?
X in this case is politicians (recipient s of the money). The discussion​ after that focused on the effect of ads themselves.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:18 AM   #2711
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Just that there isn't enough influence to be significant, right?
Significant is a pretty loaded term. Things without much effect can still have significant influence. There may be a factor in a sport that will only have an influence in 1 out of a 1,000 games. Sometime that one game is the "big game
" The factor is certainly significant even if it doesn't have much of an effect.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:38 AM   #2712
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,522
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Significant is a pretty loaded term. Things without much effect can still have significant influence. There may be a factor in a sport that will only have an influence in 1 out of a 1,000 games. Sometime that one game is the "big game
" The factor is certainly significant even if it doesn't have much of an effect.
Your position is more slippery than an otter in oil on this.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:39 AM   #2713
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,346
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Your position is more slippery than an otter in oil on this.

It hasn't changed from the position "not much effect." You are the one trying to characterize it as not significant.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.