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.
2015/11/26 07:06:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Then you need to re-calibrate that "anti-bull gak" detector scooty. Because, if I'm not mistaken, that's the same spin pushed by media matters.
Actually, I pulled that transcript of her address from The Washington Post.
The context doesn't help at all... She is still saying, "The law is good, and the benefits will prove themselves worthy... TRUST US".
Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Whatever happen to careful deliberation and informing the public?
Who exactly are you addressing here?
The Democrats made their bed and will take their beating until the PPACA is repealed or reformed to look nothing like as it is now.
That has nothing to do with you and your Fox News overlords taking a sentence out of context.
Your BS meter needs calibration, because it appears to be stuck at:
Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/26 13:30:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
2015/11/26 13:52:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
The joke was that Senators weren't reading the bills they were passing before voting on them, not that they didn't have the full law available (though the later would be more true to what Pelosi was getting at when she made the statement).
"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Her gaffe is a very lacking in eloquence statement about the nature of the Congress and it's habit of debating (often to the point of inanity) every little detail of a bill, all while constantly tacking on amendments to everything under the sun (creating more debate), including things that had absolutely nothing to do with Health Care Reform (creating more amendments). Literally, Congress could not know what the ACA would look like until it stopped debating/amending the bill and passed it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/26 13:52:44
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
Just a minor clarification. Nancy Pelosi has never been a US Senator. She's the Representative of California's 12th District, is the House Minority Leader, and IIRC, at the time of the quote that is being debated, was the Speaker of the House.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/26 14:27:34
2015/11/26 15:12:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I want to say that part of the problem was also that the bills in the house and senate were a little different (which is normal) so they would have to pass different versions (which is normal) in order to sent it to reconciliation committee (which is normal) to create a bill that is different from both the house and senate versions (which is normal) so that both chambers can have a final bill to vote on (which is normal).
So the house and the senate had to pass their respective bills to get a final bill back to vote on it. So they actually wouldn't know for sure what will be in the final bill until they vote on it. Which is again normal and how congress works.
(Insert "I'm just a bill" video)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/26 15:13:02
2015/11/26 15:15:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Actually, context is everything. Why I am I not surprised that small snippets of speeches exist only in a vacuum to you? Also, do you personally demand to read every bill that's put to vote in Congress or do you trust your elected officials to read it and vote for you? (You know, fulfilling the job they were elected to do).
Most of this debate took place before I moved to the US so the coverage was perhaps not as clear, but it was my recollection that Pelosi said that it had to be passed before they found out what was in it meaning that her fellow Senators did not have the full law available. If that was the case does that not fly in the notion that the Senators are supposed to read every law on behalf of the public?
Just a minor clarification. Nancy Pelosi has never been a US Senator. She's the Representative of California's 12th District, is the House Minority Leader, and IIRC, at the time of the quote that is being debated, was the Speaker of the House.
Meh... Same gak, different pile.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/26 16:43:58
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/26 18:28:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes. If you're unable to afford such a car, given your job, then you are doing something wrong.
You know nothing dogma and you're using this as a backhanded slight.
I'm done with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I want to say that part of the problem was also that the bills in the house and senate were a little different (which is normal) so they would have to pass different versions (which is normal) in order to sent it to reconciliation committee (which is normal) to create a bill that is different from both the house and senate versions (which is normal) so that both chambers can have a final bill to vote on (which is normal).
So the house and the senate had to pass their respective bills to get a final bill back to vote on it. So they actually wouldn't know for sure what will be in the final bill until they vote on it. Which is again normal and how congress works.
(Insert "I'm just a bill" video)
It is a problem.
Something of this magnitude should've been given a chance that all parties and the public reviews this law.
So, instead, this was rammed through and we ended with this gak sammich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
Enjoy your Thanksgiving and eat an extra punkin pie for me!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/26 18:40:54
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/26 18:50:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
So do you have any counter point or evidence as to why you created a false statement by omitting context or do you admit that what you said was not the truth?
whembly wrote: Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
I've retyped and retyped what I'm about to post like 8 times but the truth is, I'm realizing that every time you do this and someone points out how context works (i.e. in this case the previous 2 sentences clearly explain what he meant), then they're sort of the problem too. We're the problem. At some point, we need to stop being Charlie Brown to your Lucy setting up a poop-filled football.
This thread is a living, breathing monument to why this subforum should be shut down. Reasonable debates come here to die.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/26 19:03:49
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/11/26 20:24:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Right, because I provided you the context of the statement that you chose to ignore, I'm the one whose bull gak meter is stuck on "peak." This is just another one of those things on the long list of items where your version of the events (in reality, the one given to you by Fox News) is the only one that matters, regardless of what information is given to you that might challenge your narrative.
Oh sorry... I shouldn't have said that, I don't want you to feel persecuted!
Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
Nah...
Right, because to you all things exist in a vacuum because "context" is a word you either don't seem to understand or just willfully ignore. (I'm betting it's actually both of those things; you don't understand it so you choose to ignore it... problem solved!).
Though I'm sure you consider yourself to be such an informed voter, quite literally everything you type here proves you otherwise. In other words: garbage in, garbage out.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving and eat an extra punkin pie for me!
I'm at work for Thanksgiving so I don't get to enjoy it like most of you and I don't eat pumpkin pie because pumpkins taste like gak.
I appreciate the sentiment though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/26 23:01:16
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/26 22:53:52
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: ...properly prepared pumpkin pie is delicious.
Ugh... no! The only think pumpkins are good for is making jack-o-lanterns.
d-usa wrote: Maybe we can all commit to stop feeding the beast and just let this thread die.
Very well.
...but this thread is so much fun!
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/26 23:09:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Sure thing scooty. Maybe we'll go around about what Obama meant by "you didn't build that" too!
I've retyped and retyped what I'm about to post like 8 times but the truth is, I'm realizing that every time you do this and someone points out how context works (i.e. in this case the previous 2 sentences clearly explain what he meant), then they're sort of the problem too. We're the problem. At some point, we need to stop being Charlie Brown to your Lucy setting up a poop-filled football.
This thread is a living, breathing monument to why this subforum should be shut down. Reasonable debates come here to die.
Dear lord guys... can't ya'll take a *hint*?
EDIT: against my better judgement, here's the distinction. I *know* he meant the roads and bridges, not the business itself. Here's the problem. It's the fact that he basically confirmed (as expected) his political viewpoints that sees government as the solution to *everything*. Only someone who thinks government is the answer would bring that up on a campaign trail.... those words contained an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers who helped them along the way.
But, go ahead and chaulk that up as some "Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)".... lord knows I've targeted those who exhibited the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I'm at work for Thanksgiving so I don't get to enjoy it like most of you and I don't eat pumpkin pie because pumpkins taste like gak.
I appreciate the sentiment though.
Bummer you had to work.
So... pecan pie for the win?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: At this point it just feels like work. Let's just take off until Christmas and see what happens! A cleanse of sorts!
Where's your twerky dammit?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/27 00:08:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/27 01:05:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It's the fact that he basically confirmed (as expected) his political viewpoints that sees government as the solution to *everything*. Only someone who thinks government is the answer would bring that up on a campaign trail....
Err, no. Not at all. Saying "acknowledge the help you have received" is not the same thing as saying "the government is the solution to everything". Seriously, you're going beyond merely being wrong and into not even having conclusions that follow from your premises. You've left behind claiming that 1+1=3 and moved into 1+1=SDLKFGJOISEOR.
those words contained an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers who helped them along the way.
Yes, because it's true. Some business owners, especially conservative/libertarian business owners, are selfish and ungrateful. They'll tell you all about how they succeeded on their own merits and shouldn't have to pay taxes or fund "welfare" programs, and completely ignore the fact that they benefit from roads/schools/power/etc that the government provides.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/11/27 02:49:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Trust me, I'm not bothered in the least bit. By working today and tomorrow (also a paid holiday for us), my check next week will almost be double a normal check. It was worth it to sit around at work, watch YouTube videos, a couple episodes of The Man in the High Castle, and argue with you because it essential paid for my kids' Christmas gifts.
So... pecan pie for the win?
I dare say pecans might worse than pumpkin. Really though, it boils down to the fact that I just hate pie.
I mean, you know how us liberals are...
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/11/27 02:58:25
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Its not even a matter of economy or the constitution with the current climate and the shift of the republican party to the right. The most mellow candidate(who stands a chance of winning, sorry Rand) in the republican primaries has attended a conference where a "kill the gays" pastor was an important speaker.
On one hand you have a potential screw up because the government hasn't had experience in a sector they are managing.
On the other hand we have a theocracy.
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
2015/11/27 03:50:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Trust me, I'm not bothered in the least bit. By working today and tomorrow (also a paid holiday for us), my check next week will almost be double a normal check. It was worth it to sit around at work, watch YouTube videos, a couple episodes of The Man in the High Castle, and argue with you because it essential paid for my kids' Christmas gifts.
Good for you buddy.
So... pecan pie for the win?
I dare say pecans might worse than pumpkin. Really though, it boils down to the fact that I just hate pie.
I mean, you know how us liberals are...
Well gak man... what's your sweet tooth then?
A pound-o-whembly flesh?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/27 07:49:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability.
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/11/27 19:24:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gordon Shumway wrote: And now Trump has resorted to mocking a physically disabled reporter...and get this, he is demanding an apology for "the media" attacking him for it. Seriously can't make this stuff up.
I wonder if his poll numbers will go up even higher among GOP primary voters?
It is so depressing that I think it actually will.
Okay... I don't get the impression that Trump was mocking the reporter's disability.
Trump was *mocking* the reporter, don't get me wrong, as it's along the same tactic he used with others.
But, this dogpile is bizzare and unfortunately feeds into the ridiculous narrative that everyone is so unfair to Trump. Thus he'll enjoy a bump in the polls.
Ya'll should feel bad for making me defend Trump.
Naw brah, he very much did diliberately mock Serge Kovaleski's disability. Let's not be PC here and defend Trump's actions. He is a mean spirited person that attracts mean spirited people.
So yes he will see a jump in the polls because he does precisely what horrible people want to see.
