Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.

No matter what happens in this Brit's life, he's never gettind denied healthcare.

Neither in an American's whats your point?

Frazzled wrote:Spendin starts four years AFTER the taxation begins. Thats pri8ma facae proof, if everything went as planned its not budget nuetral.

Its not really, as the issue of transitional costs is separate from that of sustained costs. A program can be budget neutral over its lifetime, even if it isn't during the first few years. Though I would agree that the bill is not budget neutral in the sense that it will cause an increase in expenditure if passed.

Frazzled wrote:
That doesn't count the more important issue that it rips medicare to pieces.

You're stealing money from old people who worked all their lives to pay for this travesty.

The Senate bill reduces Medicare growth by roughly 10% (given the worst case scenario) over ten years. That's hardly ripping it to shreds given that estimates of waste in the system verge on 20%, and the altered payment language present in both bills; substituting quality of care, for amount of care, where 'amount' is defined is the number of people being supplied benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Neither in an American's whats your point?

I've been denied healthcare for athletic injuries.

Frazzled wrote:Neither in an American's whats your point?

No... we just go bankrupt.

GG

Frazzled wrote:Neither in an American's whats your point?

Hardly, it's quite easy to be removed from care for chronic illness if you're uninsured.

Yes, that's the problem with Obama. He's not liberal enough and he compromises with his political opposition.

In other news the Easter Bunny is bringing holiday chocolates to all the good boys and girls.

I don't even know where to start in this thread...

You know, I'm consistently amazed at how the meaning of word 'compromise' is consistently perverted.

dogma wrote:You know, I'm consistently amazed at how the meaning of word 'compromise' is consistently perverted.

You shouldn't be....

A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.

tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.

Hardly...

I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.

Hardly...

Proof, please...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.

BINGO!

tblock1984 wrote:Proof, please...

Proof of what? That I, along with many of my friends, disagree with the man on a political level? Ok, we do. The burden of proof lies in you; he who made such a haughty declaration. Indeed, you were all too hasty to put forth such a generalist statement with a quick scratch at the keyboard. Truly, there are some individuals who are exactly as you describe, but can you name their numbers, or even the percentage of the eligible voting population that they make up? Considering the number of people who wholeheartedly approve of Barack Obama's presidency and the policies of his administration, I could just as easily reverse your statement and declare, "A smart man that the people love because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand." I disagree with the president, as do many that I know, simply because we have one desire: to stop spending money we don't have! I like the man, I really do, but I don't care for his politics. I consider myself well informed and an intellectual. You may consider that in contradiction to my criticism, but on the same token I don't believe in true equality or in democracy. I have heard from you and others, those who tend to be of the leftist persuasion, the rantings of equality and brotherhood and all that sort of rubbish, but in the same breath declare your fellow man to be below you on an intellectual level. I find the whole thing both hypocritical and annoying. Dogma, like myself, doesn't even presume to hide his own presumptions, which is altogether honest and laudable IMHO. So to your request I retort: You first.

tblock1984 wrote:

dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.

BINGO!

And I am sure that you are among the enlightened who is alone in a sea of dark ignorance. The tendency for people to throw others under the bus because of their own self-proclaimed superiority never ceases to amaze me. This annoyed me so much that I felt it double the deserved disdain, derision, denigration and disparagement from myself. This reply has been brought to you today by the letter D folks.

Nice. I see what you did there. I like how you made me look like an arrogant donkey-cave for not thinking like you. Very American. Case in point. I just wanted to lighten the tension in the thread with some lolz...

I was asking for proof to support your claim that my OPINION was "hardly" accurate. I remember you saying that about my religion once (or lack thereof). What was it? Oh, yeah:

JEB_Stuart wrote:The cynicism that drips from your point of view is nowhere near the reality that most Christians, I can't speak for other religions, live in. Why do you hate something so much, especially when it provides hope and faith to billions? I am all for someone having their own opinion, but you border on the irresponsible by constantly trashing other peoples beliefs and belittling their intellect. It is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. If you have to make yourself feel more confident in your own beliefs by trashing those of others, then fine, but please don't do it here. You should try to be tolerant of others' opinions and beliefs, and not treat them like gak all the time. Just my two cents....

I never said anyone couldn't share their opinions. If you read my post you would note that I only demanded respect.

I don't believe in God. You don't believe in Obama. I accept that. But instead, you refused to answer my question and turned it back on me... Again.
You, sir, will never have my respect if you continually talk down to me, accusing me of being the arrogant one because you disagree with me.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't believe in true equality

Apparently




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, here is your fething proof...

The Wall Street Journal wrote:It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.

Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.

But it IS smaller.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.

Hardly...

JEB, I appreciate most of your input, but it is very clear who started this whole mini-flame war.

Commenting with sarcastic one-liners, then flipping the convo 'into your favor', is hardly what I would expect from you. I know that most, if not all of your opinions are informed to a high degree. I would appreciate if these threads did not have to be so ridiculously personal.

You are taking tblocks words, and twisting them. You started with a one lined response, to which you got a two line response. Not particularly surprising given the personalized way, in which you have continued this conversation.

I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.

Wrexasaur wrote:I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.

As always... I agree with Wrex. I think it is the fresh salty air of the Marine layer here in the Bay Area... (BTW, this morning's fog was AWESOME!!!) That, or we have the same dealer. You ARE in Berkley, after all...

@JEB_Stuart: Sorry, bro. Lost mah cool...


For the record, I think my satirical analogy comparing comparing Obama to President Not Sure was pretty accurate when taken in the light-hearted context I wrote it in.
Not to mention freakin' hilarious! I love that scene.

President Not Sure wrote:There was a time when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!

tblock1984 wrote:Nice. I see what you did there. I like how you made me look like an arrogant donkey-cave for not thinking like you.

No, I called you out on being in contradiction with your own beliefs. I fear it was your declaration that broke the camel's back as it were. This seems to be a constant theme on Dakka lately: I am smart, and everyone else is stupid. Frankly its annoying and childish. Also you started by declaring that those who disagree with this smart man do so out of fear and ignorance. How do you think those who disagree should feel about that?

tblock1984 wrote:I don't believe in God. You don't believe in Obama. I accept that. But instead, you refused to answer my question and turned it back on me... Again.
You, sir, will never have my respect if you continually talk down to me, accusing me of being the arrogant one because you disagree with me.

Excuse me, but how the hell did that have anything to do with what I said? I don't even know what you were trying to accomplish with that. It was completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, and even to your own comments. If you remember that quote was directed at MDG, not at your religion. I do feel bad about the harshness of my post, but you are grasping at logical straws on this one.

tblock1984 wrote:BTW, here is your fething proof...

So you cite an opinion article that is from a decidedly conservative newspaper. Not the proof I was looking for.

Wrexasaur wrote:JEB, I appreciate most of your input, but it is very clear who started this whole mini-flame war.

You're absolutely right, I did start it. And I do feel bad about how harsh I was in my response. As I have already said my anger and frustration has just boiled over to the spouting point, not just with Dakka, but with a number of other things. I shouldn't have let it get the best of me. Apologies to all on Dakka, especially tblock. Thanks for your vote of confidence though Wrex.

Wrexasaur wrote:Commenting with sarcastic one-liners, then flipping the convo 'into your favor', is hardly what I would expect from you. I know that most, if not all of your opinions are informed to a high degree. I would appreciate if these threads did not have to be so ridiculously personal.

Again, it was a mistake that I chalk up to a moment of emotion and anger. It happens from time to time, I am simply human after all.

Wrexasaur wrote:I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.

I am all for that.

tblock1984 wrote:

dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.

BINGO!

Keep in mind that this goes both ways. Most people don't study politics seriously, so most people engage with the subject on an emotional basis. Which is to say that most people base their decisions on attachments to certain terms, rather than the actual meaning of those terms in the context of a policy debate.

dogma wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:

dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.

BINGO!

Keep in mind that this goes both ways. Most people don't study politics seriously, so most people engage with the subject on an emotional basis. Which is to say that most people base their decisions on attachments to certain terms, rather than the actual meaning of those terms in the context of a policy debate.

I am not sure if that was meant for me or JEB, but that is exactly what I was getting at with my analogy. True story, my Dad voted to re-elect Bush simply because my Dad is a republican. I don't think that is conductive to the democratic process.

I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.

I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.

Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.

To be clear though, I did not see either of the last candidates all that badly overall. In Obama I saw an inexperienced politician that would inevitably work against his voters at some point, and McCain just scared the living crap out of me, before, AND after Palin jumped on the Choo-Choo train to 'not getting elected town'...

Wrexasaur wrote:I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.

I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.

Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.

To be clear though, I did not see either of the last candidates all that badly overall. In Obama I saw an inexperienced politician that would inevitably work against his voters at some point, and McCain just scared the living crap out of me, before, AND after Palin jumped on the Choo-Choo train to 'not getting elected town'...

QFT. That is why I didn't vote. I am a QA tester (until tomorrow... Junior Level Designer title change FTW!!!), I observe and report.

Wrexasaur wrote:I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.

True, but before everyone assume it's other people that are voting based on loyalty or emotion... who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?

And I am sure that you are among the enlightened who is alone in a sea of dark ignorance. The tendency for people to throw others under the bus because of their own self-proclaimed superiority never ceases to amaze me.

I haven't thrown anyone under an actual bus yet, so you should probably re-calibrate your meter and wait.

I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.
I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.

Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.

It's why we vote in representatives and don't use a direct democracy. The public by and large is neither studious nor involved enough to self govern. The unforunate side effect of representative democracy when combined with a deregulated news environment is the creation an information state where public officials concern themselves not with how well legislation works, but how good it looks. The breakdown of democracy now directly falls on the shoulders of the masses which it now, so unlike before, accurately represents.

ShumaGorath wrote:I haven't thrown anyone under an actual bus yet

I am sure it is coming shuma....

sebster wrote:True, but before everyone assume it's other people that are voting based on loyalty or emotion... who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?

The real question is how much those bills have changed, and what it is we are actually left with. After all of the misinformation from the past few months, and my lack of interest in reading such a massive piece of legislation, all I want is an accurate summary.

Whatever the hell is left of the original bills, fails to impress me in any way. So little seems to actually have been accomplished, that I honestly wonder how much will be left of all of it, come the next Pres. election.

sebster wrote:who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?

Nobody in Congress that is for sure....

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?

Nobody in Congress that is for sure....

No one at fox either. Sometimes I think dogma and frazzled are it.

Wasn't there a plan, to read the bill out loud to an empty congress at one point? I am sure the wallpaper would be interested in hearing it.