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.
It's actually quite interesting to read, if you look at it in the right context. Basically we have a handful of posters all finding bits and pieces from the conservative press about how bad and evil and doomed to fail ACA is, and posting them here, where they'll all post things agreeing with each other that the correct that article is that ACA is the worst thing ever... it's kind of like watching the creation of myth, in real time.
As someone who has posted a great many links here, all I will point is two things;
1. I welcome rebuttal to the articles/news/opinions that have been posted. No one has been chased out of this thread with a pitch fork for expressing their views
2. As someone who posts a lot of CNN articles concerning the ACA your line about "conservative press" is just junk and lazy stereotyping
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 14:32:18
It's actually quite interesting to read, if you look at it in the right context. Basically we have a handful of posters all finding bits and pieces from the conservative press about how bad and evil and doomed to fail ACA is, and posting them here, where they'll all post things agreeing with each other that the correct that article is that ACA is the worst thing ever... it's kind of like watching the creation of myth, in real time.
As someone who has posted a great many links here, all I will point is two things;
1. I welcome rebuttal to the articles/news/opinions that have been posted. No one has been chased out of this thread with a pitch fork for expressing their views
2. As someone who posts a lot of CNN articles concerning the ACA your line about "conservative press" is just junk and lazy stereotyping
And Seb has shown me why Christians are still around
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/10 23:11:58
"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
Granted, more than conservative press has been posted in this thread, but come on. Do any of you read Yahoo! News? They might not be a conservative as you but they are definitely conservative leaning publications. Hell I don't think anyone liberal even works for Yahoo! News at this point. I'm pretty sure it's the bastion for all the editors/writers so bad at fact checking (and spelling) Fox News couldn't take them and keep a straight face.
Now if Huffington Post is conservative... well we know who has really gone off the deep end.
Anyways, White House delays the Employer Mandate for ANOTHER year.
It is amazing that the law of the land can be deferred so easily, and on a whim without any vote on the matter in either house.
If the ACA is such a wonderful piece of legislation, and does everything that the Administration claims, why would they possible want to delay implementing it?
Now if Huffington Post is conservative... well we know who has really gone off the deep end.
Anyways, White House delays the Employer Mandate for ANOTHER year.
It is amazing that the law of the land can be deferred so easily, and on a whim without any vote on the matter in either house.
If the ACA is such a wonderful piece of legislation, and does everything that the Administration claims, why would they possible want to delay implementing it?
Seaward wrote: You are deep down the rabbit hole and firmly in the tank when you start claiming that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, et. al. are the "conservative press."
True, plenty of the reports come from mainstream media. Thanks for the clarification, as it helps highlight the point that there is a lot of scope for good and necessary criticism of ACA, but the problem here is the echo chamber process of repeating only the negative, and doing it to a crowd consisting entirely of likeminded ACA haters. The result is the creation of an absolute conviction based on nothing but one side of the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As someone who has posted a great many links here, all I will point is two things;
1. I welcome rebuttal to the articles/news/opinions that have been posted. No one has been chased out of this thread with a pitch fork for expressing their views
We had an argument that stretched over many posts. Even by the standards of dakka, it was a total fething waste of time.
2. As someone who posts a lot of CNN articles concerning the ACA your line about "conservative press" is just junk and lazy stereotyping
I've posted CNN articles? You sure you're not getting me confused with someone else? I'm not really the newspaper article posting kind of guy, and if I do it's unlikely to be from CNN, given I don't go to that site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: CNN, LA Times, CNBC, Yahoo... all links posted in the last couple pages. Conservative press he says...
And here is the echo chamber in action. Focus in one a single adjective in my post, use that to ignore my greater point. Find any excuse to reject what you don't want to hear, and at the same time embrace anything that attempts a point you do want to hear. Do this in a group, and the result is incredibly powerful.
Oh, I forgot the CBO as well.
Yeah, see, I already pointed out how insane you and the greater anti-ACA crowd is over the CBO report. You then post your sentence above, apparently oblivious of that.
This is the actual line from the CBO;
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.”
What followed from that was, basically, a ridiculous exercise in journalists making gak up, and pretending 'choose to supply' is the same thing as 'lost job'. So much so the CBO have taken the unusual step of posting a Q&A clarification on their website, explaining what their simple english sentence means. I doubt it will achieve anything, because no-one could make an honest mistake that that sentence referred to people losing their jobs, the only way that interpretation could be made is if people were happy to lie about what they read in order to sell their political stance, and their audience was happy to be lied to, as long as they got hear something that claimed to support their political stance.
Or, to put this nonsense in narrative form;
"Hey Steve, how are going?"
"Great, kids are out of the house, the mortgage is paid off and we've got a nice nest egg built up, so just yesterday I went in to the boss and told him I'd like to cut down to just 4 days a week."
"Oh that's terrible, you lost hours!"
"Nah, I chose to work less hours, because we're in a position where we don't need more hours."
"I hope you and Donna will be okay! Is there anything we can do? If you need help with groceries or anything, just ask?"
"What? Are you even listening to what I'm saying? Do you post on dakka, in that Obamacare thread? Is that what's going on here?"
"I do post there yes, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Is it too early to do a canned goods drive? Don't worry Steve, we've got your back!"
I now look forward to you completely ignoring this, to continue believing the CBO report was negative.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/11 02:40:21
“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.
Now if Huffington Post is conservative... well we know who has really gone off the deep end.
Anyways, White House delays the Employer Mandate for ANOTHER year.
It is amazing that the law of the land can be deferred so easily, and on a whim without any vote on the matter in either house.
If the ACA is such a wonderful piece of legislation, and does everything that the Administration claims, why would they possible want to delay implementing it?
Obamacare went long ago from being "the law of the land" to "Obama's whim of the moment of the land".
You know... I remember a long, looong, looooooooooooooooong time ago that to suggest any sort of Obamacare delays that you'd be labeled as Legislative Arsonists or Kidnappers or even TERRORISTS!
But, then again... don't mind me... the Democrats are completely faultless here.
One of the biggest damage here, really, is now there's precedent that a President can willy-nilly choose NOT to enforce certain laws. I blame Congress (and by extension the voters).
Just imagine that if a Republican President get elected, he (or she) may choose NOT to fund the EPA... or, cut off all federal fundings to Planned Parenthood and damn whatever Congress demanded.
Yeah, see, I already pointed out how insane you and the greater anti-ACA crowd is over the CBO report. You then post your sentence above, apparently oblivious of that.
This is the actual line from the CBO; “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.”
What followed from that was, basically, a ridiculous exercise in journalists making gak up, and pretending 'choose to supply' is the same thing as 'lost job'. So much so the CBO have taken the unusual step of posting a Q&A clarification on their website, explaining what their simple english sentence means. I doubt it will achieve anything, because no-one could make an honest mistake that that sentence referred to people losing their jobs, the only way that interpretation could be made is if people were happy to lie about what they read in order to sell their political stance, and their audience was happy to be lied to, as long as they got hear something that claimed to support their political stance.
Or, to put this nonsense in narrative form;
"Hey Steve, how are going?" "Great, kids are out of the house, the mortgage is paid off and we've got a nice nest egg built up, so just yesterday I went in to the boss and told him I'd like to cut down to just 4 days a week." "Oh that's terrible, you lost hours!" "Nah, I chose to work less hours, because we're in a position where we don't need more hours." "I hope you and Donna will be okay! Is there anything we can do? If you need help with groceries or anything, just ask?" "What? Are you even listening to what I'm saying? Do you post on dakka, in that Obamacare thread? Is that what's going on here?" "I do post there yes, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Is it too early to do a canned goods drive? Don't worry Steve, we've got your back!"
I now look forward to you completely ignoring this, to continue believing the CBO report was negative.
Holy batman Seb!
Can you NOT see that this CBO report is a bit of "spin" in trying to predict that future workers may WANT to cut their own hours?
For one thing, how in the Emperor's BUNGHOLE can you make this sort of forecast?
Methinks someone within the CBO is trying to blunt some really bad news...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/11 07:09:12
Can you NOT see that this CBO report is a bit of "spin" in trying to predict that future workers may WANT to cut their own hours?
What spin? From who? If they wanted to massage this or spin it... why would they have mentioned it at all?
For one thing, how in the Emperor's BUNGHOLE can you make this sort of forecast?
That's like asking an engineer how they can just predict that bridge will not collapse in to the river... it's the job of these people to figure this stuff out.
Anyhow, if you actually want to understand what happened with this CBO report, understand that the job of these people is to assess the future economic impacts of various policies. So way back in 2009 the CBO released a report in which they said that there'd be a reduction in working hours as people would opt to work less hours, thanks to the option of coverage outside of work, subsidies reducing the need for income etc... But they didn't quantify the effect, because they had no model to estimate it. They then worked on methods to quantify those numbers, including some measures in a 2010 report, before now coming out with a new report with much more reliable numbers based on a model they feel is fairly robust.
And they included these numbers in a CBO report because that's their fething job - they need to estimate future GDP in order to know future tax revenue and expenditures, so government has some kind of idea about where it's heading.
That some people might choose to read the line “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor" and lie about it, and other people might choose to believe that lie... says nothing at all about the necessary and bi-partisan work undertaken by the CBO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/11 08:34:39
“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.
So you think it's a good thing that people will be able to work less, or not at all, because government subsidies will cover the cost of their health care? That's really the bar we're using to measure success?
sebster wrote: We had an argument that stretched over many posts. Even by the standards of dakka, it was a total fething waste of time.
Well, if you continue to use invective, obfuscate, make false comparisons, and ignore the actual points being made then you are quite likely to find that it is an exercise in frustration. Those however were conscious choices of conduct on your behalf.
Of course if you feel that I chased you out with a pitchfork for expressing your view then all I can say is that I am sorry you feel that way.
sebster wrote: I've posted CNN articles? You sure you're not getting me confused with someone else? I'm not really the newspaper article posting kind of guy, and if I do it's unlikely to be from CNN, given I don't go to that site.
I was saying that I post a lot of links from CNN, not you. So to address the point that you ignored - to call CNN a part of the "conservative press" is just lazy stereotyping
Seaward wrote: So you think it's a good thing that people will be able to work less, or not at all, because government subsidies will cover the cost of their health care? That's really the bar we're using to measure success?
Why in the feth are you talking about success? It's just a statement of what will happen, when people have less pressure to work they will choose to work less. Whether or not that's a good thing can be left up to the reader.
Just please... stop trying to jam the report in to your politics and just fething read it and learn something.
“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.
Seaward wrote: So you think it's a good thing that people will be able to work less, or not at all, because government subsidies will cover the cost of their health care? That's really the bar we're using to measure success?
Why in the feth are you talking about success? It's just a statement of what will happen, when people have less pressure to work they will choose to work less. Whether or not that's a good thing can be left up to the reader.
Just please... stop trying to jam the report in to your politics and just fething read it and learn something.
And a lot of readers said it was a bad thing that a government program would encourage people to work less and rely on the government more.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, if you continue to use invective, obfuscate, make false comparisons, and ignore the actual points being made then you are quite likely to find that it is an exercise in frustration. Those however were conscious choices of conduct on your behalf.
Of course if you feel that I chased you out with a pitchfork for expressing your view then all I can say is that I am sorry you feel that way.
I don't think you chased me out with a pitchfork at all. I have no idea where you're getting that from. We argued for a long time, and it drifted off, I honestly don't know if I gave the last response or you did, and if it was me it wasn't because I made a choice to stop responding, I either would have missed your last response, or forgot to check, or one of the other similar ways those arguments tend to peter out.
But in the cold light of day, thinking back on the argument, I think it was even more pointless than the average dakka argument. Because you really, seriously aren't even half-listening to the other side. We got through a dozen or more posts and you didn't even understand the first, most basic elements of my point.
I was saying that I post a lot of links from CNN, not you. So to address the point that you ignored - to call CNN a part of the "conservative press" is just lazy stereotyping
And here we are, a new argument and it's already junk. You have picked up on a single adjective in my post, and an adjective I already said wasn't correct... and you're still using to attempt to dismiss the whole point. Lazy, half-assed nonsense.
Anyhow, I am really not at all interested in starting up a new debate with you or anyone else in this thread on ACA. Just do yourself a favour and take a minute to try and become aware of your state of mind right now, how convinced you are... and make a note to reflect on that position in a year from now, a then in another year after that, and so on. See how much of what you were so certain of actually did happen. See what there is to be learnt from that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: And a lot of readers said it was a bad thing that a government program would encourage people to work less and rely on the government more.
This isn't hard to understand, sebster.
And I haven't criticised that argument at all. I don't agree with it, but it's logically sound. My issue, as you would have read had you, like, read my posts, explained quite clearly the problem was with the completely incorrect claims that CBO reported job losses, when it reported nothing of the sort.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/11 09:27:21
“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.
sebster wrote: And I haven't criticised that argument at all. I don't agree with it, but it's logically sound. My issue, as you would have read had you, like, read my posts, explained quite clearly the problem was with the completely incorrect claims that CBO reported job losses, when it reported nothing of the sort.
Was this in the post where you claimed the New York Times was part of the conservative press? I'll admit I didn't give them a lot of attention after that.
sebster wrote: I don't think you chased me out with a pitchfork at all. I have no idea where you're getting that from. We argued for a long time, and it drifted off, I honestly don't know if I gave the last response or you did, and if it was me it wasn't because I made a choice to stop responding, I either would have missed your last response, or forgot to check, or one of the other similar ways those arguments tend to peter out.
Because that exact phrase was one I used, which you quoted why responding. I do not recall the conversation "drifting off", it stayed pretty close to the topic at hand.
sebster wrote: But in the cold light of day, thinking back on the argument, I think it was even more pointless than the average dakka argument. Because you really, seriously aren't even half-listening to the other side. We got through a dozen or more posts and you didn't even understand the first, most basic elements of my point.
It was so pointless that you personally felt the need to revive it, and conduct a post mortem on it? I got your point Sebster. I rebutted it on numerous occasions. I cannot honestly say the same for your good self who tried every trick except engaging with the actual point being made.
sebster wrote: And here we are, a new argument and it's already junk. You have picked up on a single adjective in my post, and an adjective I already said wasn't correct... and you're still using to attempt to dismiss the whole point. Lazy, half-assed nonsense.
Except that I do not see where you said that was not correct Sebster. I do see this post of your's as an echo of a comment you addressed to djones520 ("And here is the echo chamber in action. Focus in one a single adjective in my post, use that to ignore my greater point. Find any excuse to reject what you don't want to hear, and at the same time embrace anything that attempts a point you do want to hear. Do this in a group, and the result is incredibly powerful. "). At no point did you say that your phrase was incorrect, or anything of the sort.
I did enjoy the irony of your post to djones though. Bar the group part it neatly encapsulates your behaviour during our discussion on the ACA
The fact remains though that you did attempt to brand the links posted here as " bits and pieces from the conservative press about how bad and evil and doomed to fail ACA is". So what I would say is;
1. Calling you out on this is absolutely correct. You made the claim and did not retract it
2. If you have good news, a positive development in this saga then please do share.
sebster wrote: Anyhow, I am really not at all interested in starting up a new debate with you or anyone else in this thread on ACA. Just do yourself a favour and take a minute to try and become aware of your state of mind right now, how convinced you are... and make a note to reflect on that position in a year from now, a then in another year after that, and so on. See how much of what you were so certain of actually did happen. See what there is to be learnt from that.
So you don't want a discussion, yet you come in here start to revisit past discussions and start new ones. I believe that is a text book example of mixed messages.
Well, perhaps you would like to lead by example. So given your time frame I will see you on an annual basis as you review your position. I'll just keep myself abreast of the developments and make my own determinations based on the evidence posited.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/11 09:46:17
Remember when the Republicans were trying to get the employer mandate removed during the shutdown? Name calling aside, the popular phrase was "law of the land". I guess we see now what that is really worth when up to ten Democratic held Senate seats are in play.
We're watching the rule of law dissolve before our eyes. What does the next President do? If you blatantly selectively enforce the laws, soon there is no law.
But, then again... don't mind me... the Democrats are completely faultless here.
One of the biggest damage here, really, is now there's precedent that a President can willy-nilly choose NOT to enforce certain laws. I blame Congress (and by extension the voters).
Just imagine that if a Republican President get elected, he (or she) may choose NOT to fund the EPA... or, cut off all federal fundings to Planned Parenthood and damn whatever Congress demanded.
Yeah, see, I already pointed out how insane you and the greater anti-ACA crowd is over the CBO report. You then post your sentence above, apparently oblivious of that.
This is the actual line from the CBO;
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.”
What followed from that was, basically, a ridiculous exercise in journalists making gak up, and pretending 'choose to supply' is the same thing as 'lost job'. So much so the CBO have taken the unusual step of posting a Q&A clarification on their website, explaining what their simple english sentence means. I doubt it will achieve anything, because no-one could make an honest mistake that that sentence referred to people losing their jobs, the only way that interpretation could be made is if people were happy to lie about what they read in order to sell their political stance, and their audience was happy to be lied to, as long as they got hear something that claimed to support their political stance.
Or, to put this nonsense in narrative form;
"Hey Steve, how are going?"
"Great, kids are out of the house, the mortgage is paid off and we've got a nice nest egg built up, so just yesterday I went in to the boss and told him I'd like to cut down to just 4 days a week."
"Oh that's terrible, you lost hours!"
"Nah, I chose to work less hours, because we're in a position where we don't need more hours."
"I hope you and Donna will be okay! Is there anything we can do? If you need help with groceries or anything, just ask?"
"What? Are you even listening to what I'm saying? Do you post on dakka, in that Obamacare thread? Is that what's going on here?"
"I do post there yes, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Is it too early to do a canned goods drive? Don't worry Steve, we've got your back!"
I now look forward to you completely ignoring this, to continue believing the CBO report was negative.
Holy batman Seb!
Can you NOT see that this CBO report is a bit of "spin" in trying to predict that future workers may WANT to cut their own hours?
For one thing, how in the Emperor's BUNGHOLE can you make this sort of forecast?
Methinks someone within the CBO is trying to blunt some really bad news...
Yep. If I were President I might selectively not enforce the EPA (except in blue states), or the the Bill of Rights (except in red states). Hey I'm just implementing the law!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/11 12:18:43
-"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!
Seaward wrote: So you think it's a good thing that people will be able to work less, or not at all, because government subsidies will cover the cost of their health care? That's really the bar we're using to measure success?
Why in the feth are you talking about success? It's just a statement of what will happen, when people have less pressure to work they will choose to work less. Whether or not that's a good thing can be left up to the reader.
Just please... stop trying to jam the report in to your politics and just fething read it and learn something.
And how is that determined?
After all, it's totally one thing for a person to choose not to work and to accept the natural consequences of that decision. Right?
But, it's quite another thing for a person to choose not to work because others are being forced to subsidize his/hers well being...
After all, it's totally one thing for a person to choose not to work and to accept the natural consequences of that decision. Right?
But, it's quite another thing for a person to choose not to work because others are being forced to subsidize his/hers well being...
I'm curious, do you receive assistance due to you hearing disability?
No... why?
Even my private insurance doesn't cover it. I'd have to wait till Medicare age to get any coverages.
So, that's $6-9,000 smackaroos for a pair of hearing aids every other year. (I'm a power-junkie)
I pay for my own hearing aid batteries as well. About $15 / pack a week.
*shrugs* I'm used to it.
I will say when I was growing up that I had a special resource teacher to help me in the *normal* classroom setting (approx 2 hours / week). If that's the sort of help you're asking about?
Here's something from what Seb claims to be the bastion of conservatism:
Where CNN analyst Brianna Keilar admitted to Jake Tapper today the latest Obamacare delay was driven by politics and was another admission of the problems with the law.
whembly wrote: Here's something from what Seb claims to be the bastion of conservatism:
Where CNN analyst Brianna Keilar admitted to Jake Tapper today the latest Obamacare delay was driven by politics and was another admission of the problems with the law.
I really think the Republicans would have been smarter to let this turd have kicked in earlier and fester so people could get damn good and sick of Obamacare once they saw what it did to employment and the benefits they trade higher wages for.
whembly wrote: Here's something from what Seb claims to be the bastion of conservatism:
Where CNN analyst Brianna Keilar admitted to Jake Tapper today the latest Obamacare delay was driven by politics and was another admission of the problems with the law.
I really think the Republicans would have been smarter to let this turd have kicked in earlier and fester so people could get damn good and sick of Obamacare once they saw what it did to employment and the benefits they trade higher wages for.
Que?
What do you want them to do? Take Obama to court to prevent these unilateral changes?
