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.
So... something we are supposed to trust all of our private info with, is more open then a screen door?
Why am I not surprised in the slightest?
This is great news!
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Maybe by reading the definitions I provided - things like clunky, inelegant, etc. Error was not mentioned in a single one of them.
Listing synonyms for the word "clumsy" will not help someone distinguish between a person or action that is clumsy, and one which is not.
But providing the actual definitions (as I have done) shows that clumsy and inaccurate are not the same, therefore you were not correct in claiming that they were.
dogma wrote: Well, no, the result was not the same. The only Democrat proposing legislation which delays the relevant provisions of Obamacare by a year is Joe Manchin, and taking that as being definitive of the Democrat position is foolish.
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) is pushing legislation to delay the mandate for one year. And last week, 10 Senate Democrats — Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — wrote to the Obama administration declaring that individuals “should not be penalized for lack of coverage” if they are unable to purchase health insurance because of technical problems.With more Democrats joining the mandate-delay caucus, President Obama may have no choice but to go along.
As you were unwilling to address my other point I'll repeat it again for you;
For the sake of clarity what exactly was the difference in the legislation?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So, if the Republican states had built their own exchanges like they were suppose to we might not be having these sign-up problems now.
Tinfoil Hat ON!
I'm going to go with if the website did not have 500 Million lines of code, all developed by different firms, that crashed under a light test load yet was still rolled out then we wouldn't have these sign-up problem
djones520 wrote: So... something we are supposed to trust all of our private info with, is more open then a screen door?
Why am I not surprised in the slightest?
It was already going to the IRS anyway, and we know their recent history of leaking information to political rivals
But providing the actual definitions (as I have done) shows that clumsy and inaccurate are not the same, therefore you were not correct in claiming that they were.
[en. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) is pushing legislation to delay the mandate for one year. And last week, 10 Senate Democrats — Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — wrote to the Obama administration declaring that individuals “should not be penalized for lack of coverage” if they are unable to purchase health insurance because of technical problems.With more Democrats joining the mandate-delay caucus, President Obama may have no choice but to go along.
That quotation indicates that Joe Manchin wants to delay the mandate by 1 year, and that 10 Senate Democrats wrote a letter to the Obama Administration stating that "individuals should not be penalized for lack of coverage" if they were unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems.
I did not lie by omission, or in any other sense.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Dogma, I was getting the impression that you really only come to this site to tell other people how right you are about stuff in the off topic section.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and just peeked at your post history and was disappointed to find that my impression was accurate. What a shame.
Fwiw, I agree with you dreadclaw regarding the semantics argument surrounding "ham-fisted".
cincydooley wrote: Dogma, I was getting the impression that you really only come to this site to tell other people how right you are about stuff in the off topic section.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and just peeked at your post history and was disappointed to find that my impression was accurate. What a shame.
Fwiw, I agree with you dreadclaw regarding the semantics argument surrounding "ham-fisted".
Much of the time Dogma, by his own admission, is trolling.
cincydooley wrote: Dogma, I was getting the impression that you really only come to this site to tell other people how right you are about stuff in the off topic section.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and just peeked at your post history and was disappointed to find that my impression was accurate. What a shame.
Fwiw, I agree with you dreadclaw regarding the semantics argument surrounding "ham-fisted".
Much of the time Dogma, by his own admission, is trolling.
I'm puzzled by the insistance that a bill should be properly voted for on the floor, while at the same time defending the effort put in to preventing that vote from ever reaching the floor.
It's simply a ridiculous stance to take. If you think its important for good governance to let this kind of thing be decided by a vote on the floor, then let it get there. If you don't, then don't complain when the other side uses other methods to avoid that.
"We want to vote on this bill."
"Filibuster. We're going to deny you the chance to bring it to the floor."
"gak, and while we've got 60 votes and could put it on the floor by ourselves, unfortunately we're Democrats and this will be like herding cats."
"And there's no way any single Republican is going to help you. Not one of our 40 members is even going to think about threatening to cross. In fact, we're going to freak out and drive a senator out of office because she voted to let the bill leave a committee, and her vote wasn't even needed for it to leave."
"Well, there other means, like this reconciliation thing..."
"How dare you not do this with a vote on the floor!?"
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I'm puzzled by the insistance that a bill should be properly voted for on the floor, while at the same time defending the effort put in to preventing that vote from ever reaching the floor.
It's simply a ridiculous stance to take. If you think its important for good governance to let this kind of thing be decided by a vote on the floor, then let it get there. If you don't, then don't complain when the other side uses other methods to avoid that.
"We want to vote on this bill."
"Filibuster. We're going to deny you the chance to bring it to the floor."
"gak, and while we've got 60 votes and could put it on the floor by ourselves, unfortunately we're Democrats and this will be like herding cats."
"And there's no way any single Republican is going to help you. Not one of our 40 members is even going to think about threatening to cross. In fact, we're going to freak out and drive a senator out of office because she voted to let the bill leave a committee, and her vote wasn't even needed for it to leave."
"Well, there other means, like this reconciliation thing..."
"How dare you not do this with a vote on the floor!?"
It's not ridiculous...
You see, we were lied to.
If the Democrats & Obama had been honest about the trade-offs to the PPACA, it would never have become Obama's signature piece of legislation. It would NEVER would've been passed as is.
"We're going to prevent this reaching the floor, and then complain that you circumvented the need to put this to a vote on the floor, because at some point in the future it will become apparent that parts of this bill will have a different effect than what was claimed."
Seriously?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
"We're going to prevent this reaching the floor, and then complain that you circumvented the need to put this to a vote on the floor, because at some point in the future it will become apparent that parts of this bill will have a different effect than what was claimed."
Seriously?
fething... SERIOUSLY.
It was rammed up our collective ass.
I'm mean, can't you seriously fething see how partisan it was?
I'm mean, can't you seriously fething see how partisan it was?
We could have yet another argument about how and why it was partisan, but I'm pretty sure nothing you say will convince me that for some reason the Democrats just picked up the idiot ball and decided that somehow major healthcare reform, especially healthcare reform with a wide range of long term cost controls, was somehow a vote winner and that they wanted to own it entirely while politicising the proecess as much as possible. And that they'd do this with a structure with a form that was originally conceived of by a Republican think tank, had been argued for by major Republicans, but was something they wanted to keep the Republicans out of entirely. And at the same time, you appear to be entirely unmoved by all the quotes from Republicans in the early stages of the process saying stuff along the lines of 'this is the issue we'll destroy Obama on', so I suspect I won't be able to convince you to change your mind either.
Fortunately, we don't have to have that conversation yet again, because it has nothing to do with what we're discussing here, which is the process by which the bill passed. And on that we can get back to your two positions, which I believe are (and correct me if I'm wrong), that it is okay for the party with minority power in the senate to filibuster indefinitely, but it is not okay for the other party to bypass that filibuster through other procedural methods. Which basically means that if the minority party ever has 41 seats or more in the senate (which historically is almost always the case) and strong party discipline, then the other side just has to suck it up, and accept that either nothing happens, or even more bizarrely that 41 senate seats gives you equal say in any new piece of legislation, no matter who controls the house and presidency.
I mean, point out where I'm wrong in the above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 04:23:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
What a strange place dakka would be, if the Australians had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Englishmen had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Americans had their own threads...
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What a strange place dakka would be, if the Australians had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Englishmen had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Americans had their own threads...
Go away Socrates!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/30 05:07:49
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: That quotation indicates that Joe Manchin wants to delay the mandate by 1 year, and that 10 Senate Democrats wrote a letter to the Obama Administration stating that "individuals should not be penalized for lack of coverage" if they were unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems.
I did not lie by omission, or in any other sense.
It shows that the push to delay the mandate is by more than one person, contrary to what you claimed.
If you're content to brazenly stand on your head and tell the rest of us that we're upside down then I think we can safely conclude this conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Fwiw, I agree with you dreadclaw regarding the semantics argument surrounding "ham-fisted".
Generally I hate semantic arguments, but with dogma it becomes a necessary evil to nip a lot of the more pointless back and forth in the bud. But even when proven wrong he'll try and argue the call so I may start not engaging with him
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 09:20:27
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
What a strange place dakka would be, if the Australians had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Englishmen had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Americans had their own threads...
Wouldn't it... EDIT: You'd have to have an accent filter though. All political discussions about Australia would have to rife with "Sheila" and "Shrimp on the Barbie." British: "Stiff upper lip!" ""why yes I'll have a spot of tea old boy" US: "Hey yous guys check it out" "Like literally like you know like wow" and of course "buenos noches" French: "We surrender"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 11:42:00
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
Make sure you extend your vacuous argument to all the military members weighing in on this thread as well, since as Tricare enrollees it doesn't apply to them either.
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
cincydooley wrote: Dogma, I was getting the impression that you really only come to this site to tell other people how right you are about stuff in the off topic section.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and just peeked at your post history and was disappointed to find that my impression was accurate. What a shame.
Fwiw, I agree with you dreadclaw regarding the semantics argument surrounding "ham-fisted".
Good thing you are a paragon of integrity and truth backing up your post with something other than a more eloquent "you suck".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
What a strange place dakka would be, if the Australians had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Englishmen had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Americans had their own threads...
Who said anything about you not contributing? All I said was how much I envied you for not having this piece of odious legislation forced upon you.
But if you'd like to read into it further, by all means dear, go ahead. Your perogative, not mine.
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
Make sure you extend your vacuous argument to all the military members weighing in on this thread as well, since as Tricare enrollees it doesn't apply to them either.
Hey now, I've spent my whole life dealing with bad government healthcare. I should be considered an expert on the topic.
cincydooley wrote: Well. The good news seb is that it's our problem and not yours, thousands of miles away, so you don't have to worry about it being shoved onto you. I envy you for that.
What a strange place dakka would be, if the Australians had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Englishmen had their own threads that no-one else could contribute to, and Americans had their own threads...
Who said anything about you not contributing? All I said was how much I envied you for not having this piece of odious legislation forced upon you.
But if you'd like to read into it further, by all means dear, go ahead. Your perogative, not mine.
Well, Sebs does get the whole "You aren't an American so you can't possibly understand America" argument a lot. Not saying that was the argument you were making, but it happens here often enough for me to consider it a running gag.
Ou tof curiosity, do we know how many states have their own Exchange system set-up?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
We could have yet another argument about how and why it was partisan, but I'm pretty sure nothing you say will convince me that for some reason the Democrats just picked up the idiot ball and decided that somehow major healthcare reform, especially healthcare reform with a wide range of long term cost controls, was somehow a vote winner and that they wanted to own it entirely while politicising the proecess as much as possible.
You right... we'll keep going in circles here.
You think you're right... I know I'm right and that's that.
And that they'd do this with a structure with a form that was originally conceived of by a Republican think tank, had been argued for by major Republicans,
So one guy's plan speak for all party members? For all eternity now? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
I mean, wouldn't you agree that Soro's MoveOn organization is very beneficial to the current makeup of the Democratic party? So, by your logic, every democrat is calling for arrest of GOP leadership on sedition charges... right? RIGHT?
but was something they wanted to keep the Republicans out of entirely.
And you don't see a problem with that is very telling.
And at the same time, you appear to be entirely unmoved by all the quotes from Republicans in the early stages of the process saying stuff along the lines of 'this is the issue we'll destroy Obama on', so I suspect I won't be able to convince you to change your mind either.
Well... how's it looking for him now? How's it looking for the rest of the Democratic field? I've never thought it would reach to this point, but it's fast becoming an albatross for the Democratic party. Tell me how that's not true. I'll wait...
Fortunately, we don't have to have that conversation yet again, because it has nothing to do with what we're discussing here, which is the process by which the bill passed. And on that we can get back to your two positions, which I believe are (and correct me if I'm wrong), that it is okay for the party with minority power in the senate to filibuster indefinitely
Correct. Because that's the function and intent of the filibuster.
but it is not okay for the other party to bypass that filibuster through other procedural methods.
Correct... because really, this was the first time something like this was done on a bill of such magnitude.
Which basically means that if the minority party ever has 41 seats or more in the senate (which historically is almost always the case) and strong party discipline, then the other side just has to suck it up, and accept that either nothing happens, or even more bizarrely that 41 senate seats gives you equal say in any new piece of legislation, no matter who controls the house and presidency.
Uh... when did the word "compromise" become such a bad word with you? o.O
I mean, point out where I'm wrong in the above.
Done.
So... let's recap on the evolution on this bill... the PPACA is: ►… written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it. ►… passed by a Senate that hasn’t read it, but attempts to exempt themselves from it. ►… signed by a President who also hasn’t read it. ►… administered by a Treasury Chief who didn’t pay his taxes and will be enforced by the scandal-ridden IRS ►… passed by a House that hasn't read it, where the Speaker implored that it must be passed in order to read it. ►… lastly... I'll just say it: The incompetence during this ordeal is mind-boggling. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Given those statement above, what could possibly go wrong?
“Liberalism is the art of standing on your head and telling everyone around you that they’re upside-down.” — Jim Quinn
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/30 15:00:23
"You deserve better. I apologize. I'm accountable to you for fixing these problems."
"We did not adequately do end-to-end testing,"
“They [insurers] are not getting reliable data all the way through the systems,” she said. “The system isn’t functioning so we are not getting that reliable data.
Man oh man. What a clusterfeth. I wonder if she's going to get to keep her job.
Of course she is. There is no way Obama is going to want to try and get someone confirmed (even as a recess appointment) in the current political environment. He could re-animate Saint Reagan and nominate him, and someone would filibuster it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 19:51:24
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
Ouze wrote: Of course she is. There is no way Obama is going to want to try and get someone confirmed (even as a recess appointment) in the current political environment. He could re-animate Saint Reagan and nominate him, and someone would filibuster it.
I would, I mean Reagan is a fraternity brother and all, but I seriously question the thinking power of the recently returned to life >_>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 19:55:14
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Well, you would think that, since you're a dirty liberal who is eager to gulp down the lies the left-wing media has fed you about Zombie Reagan, Hero of 'Murica.
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
