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.
Yup... she lost her job over a very unpopular decision (the merger)... which many of the industry now praise her for taking that step.
And many more condemn.
Let's not forgot what she was doing while HP was floundering: being paid fir lectures, posing for magazine covers, and giving herself huge bonuses while laying off thousands of people.
Of course there are people that defend her, she's a controversial figure after all, but there is no denying that there are legitimate reasons she routinely makes "worst CEO" lists.
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."
So you've been to the future and have seen how this all plays out then, eh??
From the stuff I've been seeing lately, Sanders has been picking up steam in arguably the most important demographic: under 35s. Think about it, the one demographic that traditionally has, by and large abstained from voting is actually waking up and supporting him, perhaps even enough to actually vote this time around. On the other side, I've seen one R candidate gathering up some younger followers as well, but I don't think it's been quite to the level that Sanders has gotten.
So you've been to the future and have seen how this all plays out then, eh??
Dontcha know? The Clinton's are Teflon™.
From the stuff I've been seeing lately, Sanders has been picking up steam in arguably the most important demographic: under 35s. Think about it, the one demographic that traditionally has, by and large abstained from voting is actually waking up and supporting him, perhaps even enough to actually vote this time around. On the other side, I've seen one R candidate gathering up some younger followers as well, but I don't think it's been quite to the level that Sanders has gotten.
Never gunna happen. Clinton only has to move a shade to the left more to appeal to Sander's base.
Hmm decades of Pro-corporate rule in America and look where it has us. We need gov't for the people, by the people, of the people, The corporate Lobby masters have crashed the ship on the rocks already.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Eh... it feeds into a stereotype that shouldn't really be expoused by a potential President.
It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Sort of, and she fumbled it for a bunch of reasons, but I'm inclined to try and ignore that as much as possible when she's touching on a point that is actually worth discussing.
If we don't do that and we just sit on the sidelines hammering politicians whenever they say something that's a bit controversial, well then it shouldn't be a surprise when they say so little of interest.
That's fair enough, to be honest. I mean, socialism is an actual set of political beliefs that not many Americans agree with, honestly I'm surprised it's as high as 47% - might be the current popularity Sanders is feeling driving that.
Honestly, it's some of the other numbers that are pretty shameful. On the face of it we could get outraged by the fact that anyone says they wouldn't vote for a black or jewish person, or a woman etc, but those numbers are all under 10% and that's pretty much the threshold for 'people giving smart arse answers'. Some of the other numbers are bad though - 40% of people say they won't vote for an atheist, 38% won't vote for a muslim, those are terrible.
The 24% who won't vote for a gay person, and the 25% who won't vote for an evangelical christian... well both groups are bigoted, and I just hope that each group sees the irony in being so evenly matched.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/23 05:50:18
“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.
Then, she was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
She wasn't the CEO of Lucent. She was a high level executive, but not CEO. And I would hardly want to put "Lucent executive in the late 90's." on my resume after the nose dive that company took.
Why don't we talk about Carly Fiorina Enterprises, and the Fiorina Foundation? If you want to talk about the Clinton Foundation it would be only fair.
The Fiorina Foundation never really existed, it was basically just Fiorina paying people out of her own pocket while pretending that it did, and Carly Fiorina Enterprises was an attempt to create an NPO without registering it. In both cases she displayed clear lack of understanding regarding the way business law works in the US.
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
The 24% who won't vote for a gay person, and the 25% who won't vote for an evangelical christian... well both groups are bigoted, and I just hope that each group sees the irony in being so evenly matched.
As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
CEO's job is to make the company profitable. When you have a CEO that lays off thousands of workers but gives themselves huge bonuses, that's really indicative of someone who will screw over hard working Americans if it means a little more reward for them. That is not something you want in a president. You want a president that is concerned with the welfare of the people of the country, not only themselves and their buddies.
In other words, how many jobs could have been saved if they decided to forgo the bonuses?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/23 14:09:37
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
CEO's job is to make the company profitable. When you have a CEO that lays off thousands of workers but gives themselves huge bonuses, that's really indicative of someone who will screw over hard working Americans if it means a little more reward for them. That is not something you want in a president. You want a president that is concerned with the welfare of the people of the country, not only themselves and their buddies.
In other words, how many jobs could have been saved if they decided to forgo the bonuses?
If you look at POTUS as a CEO though, the way to make sure his/her "Company" (the country) is more profitable, is through increased labor pool... this means that as "CEO of a country" the POTUS is looking to increase profits, through increased tax revenue, which usually stems from more people having jobs, and fewer unemployed people.
Sure, a CEO would have some of the qualifications needed to be POTUS, but I feel that there is one single litmus test to rule out many candidates, CEO or otherwise: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sure, a CEO would have some of the qualifications needed to be POTUS, but I feel that there is one single litmus test to rule out many candidates, CEO or otherwise: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
I sure as hell don't trust Hillary.
Amb. Stevens is unavailable for comment.
Out of the current Rep. candidacy... Perry and Cruz are my picks for that.
Tannhauser42 wrote: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
There's only been one current candidate, IIRC, that has really addressed any of that, and that's Bernie Sanders. And let me tell you, I absolutely LOVE what he has to say about it:
Now, IF he were elected, do I think he'd send troops to war? I honestly think that for him, it'd be a tough decision, but ultimately he would give that green light if the situation truly warranted it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
There's only been one current candidate, IIRC, that has really addressed any of that, and that's Bernie Sanders. And let me tell you, I absolutely LOVE what he has to say about it:
Now, IF he were elected, do I think he'd send troops to war? I honestly think that for him, it'd be a tough decision, but ultimately he would give that green light if the situation truly warranted it.
Nothing short of a direct attack on US soil is the only way he's going to give that green light, imo.
On the positive, Gruber is the ideal example for my Boy. Be a professor and make gazillions on the side.
-"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!
CptJake wrote: Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'.
No, taxpayers are not investors. An investor puts in capital up-front, with the expectation of receiving a flow of money later on (or possibly the plan to sell that flow of money to another person). A tax payer puts money in and never stops, in exchange for government services like police & courts of law, roads and other infrastructure, defence, and welfare & transfer payments. The nature of the two relationships and the expectations of each are so different that comparison is utterly useless.
In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
It’s amazing that you’ve actually described the difference but didn’t realise it – when assessing jobs or any other company decision it considers its own welfare – it is not a welfare entity as you say. The concerns of other groups, including it’s own employees, are secondary at best, and more often irrelevant. Whereas government worries about national interests as a whole, worries about what strengthens and grows the US as a whole. The difference between representing a single group of investors, and representing every single person and organisation in the US is massive.
skyth wrote: As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
Who said the two groups were equivalent?
Read the actual question asked – it asks if you would vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happened to be x. A quarter of people said they would not vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happens to be Christian/Gay. Either way that is crap.
And the reason that is crap is sewn up right there in your assumption that an evangelical President must automatically want to pass reprehensible laws. That’s a massive piece of stereotyping on your behalf. And if you don’t see how this plays out in the real world, I can give you some links about gay Christians who face bigotry from both Christians and gay people.
Which is a political disaster for Obama and the Democrats.
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: On the positive, Gruber is the ideal example for my Boy. Be a professor and make gazillions on the side.
Economics is the way - you get all the intellectual freedom of a university life, with near complete freedom to work in the private sector for mad cash at the same time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/24 02:33:08
“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.
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/24 03:19:56
whembly wrote: Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
Once again, when you set out on a campaign of community hall discussion on healthcare reform, and the other side sends astro-turfers to shout down discussion and build a narrative of scary, scary Democrat reforms, and then continue that with a campaign of shouting insane nonsense about the proposed reform... you don't get to the end of the process and start complaining that you weren't included.
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Once again, sausage factory. No matter how good the bill is overall, you have to go through a weird kind of marketing operation, because any honest discussion about the bill will produce little more than a combination of lies and confusion, driven largely by what Gruber calls stupidity, but really is more a weird combination of laziness and self-martyrdom.
I mean, in this case one part of the smoke and mirrors were drawn up around the basic mechanic of poor people paying for the care of sick people. In a sensible, honest debate everyone would know that's how insurance works, for feth's sake, but we don't have a sensible, honest debate, so you deal with what you've got.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
“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.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
skyth wrote: As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
Who said the two groups were equivalent?
Read the actual question asked – it asks if you would vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happened to be x. A quarter of people said they would not vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happens to be Christian/Gay. Either way that is crap.
And the reason that is crap is sewn up right there in your assumption that an evangelical President must automatically want to pass reprehensible laws. That’s a massive piece of stereotyping on your behalf. And if you don’t see how this plays out in the real world, I can give you some links about gay Christians who face bigotry from both Christians and gay
There is a difference between Evangellical and Christian. One distinction that you are missing. Evangellical describes a behavior not just a being. If a presidential candidate didn't engage in those behaviors and suppport a certain worldview, they wouldn't be Evangellicals(at least enough to affect someone's vote)
Also qualified is different from 'will pass laws I agree with'. Perry is 'qualified' to be President. However he would pass laws I find reprehensible. It is not bigotry to vote against someone like that.
Being gay doesn't affect what policies you would support. (At least ones that affect other people). Voting against someone because they are gay IS bigotry. Voting against Evangellicals is different. If the poll results were tied between gay and Christian then you might have a point.
whembly wrote: Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
Once again, when you set out on a campaign of community hall discussion on healthcare reform, and the other side sends astro-turfers to shout down discussion and build a narrative of scary, scary Democrat reforms, and then continue that with a campaign of shouting insane nonsense about the proposed reform... you don't get to the end of the process and start complaining that you weren't included.
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Once again, sausage factory. No matter how good the bill is overall, you have to go through a weird kind of marketing operation, because any honest discussion about the bill will produce little more than a combination of lies and confusion, driven largely by what Gruber calls stupidity, but really is more a weird combination of laziness and self-martyrdom.
I mean, in this case one part of the smoke and mirrors were drawn up around the basic mechanic of poor people paying for the care of sick people. In a sensible, honest debate everyone would know that's how insurance works, for feth's sake, but we don't have a sensible, honest debate, so you deal with what you've got.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
No... you just ditch trying to make a fething comprehensive plan.
You incrementally address the issues one-by-one.
Ie, prohibit pre-existing condition clauses. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Ie, limit profit margins on private insurances. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
^This.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/24 14:15:46
And that's why I think America missed a golden opportunity with Herman Cain...
Remember, if he'd been elected his first law would've been the "Kitchen table amendment" stating that a federal law can be no more than 2 pages long, so it can be read at the kitchen table
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And that's why I think America missed a golden opportunity with Herman Cain...
Remember, if he'd been elected his first law would've been the "Kitchen table amendment" stating that a federal law can be no more than 2 pages long, so it can be read at the kitchen table
I loved Cain... and his 7/7/7 tax plan too.
But, be honest here, he could never pass that amendment as it's under Congress' purview to draft/pass federal laws. He, however, can certainly do that for Federal regulations.
Can I go slightly OT and offer some praise to America.
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
You guys love your guns.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
You guys love your guns.
Us mere peasants cannot fire guns in sports stadiums.... Those guys are hired "props" as the New England Patriots (the Tom Brady team that plays American Football) do the same thing. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a pirate ship on one end of the stadium and whenever they score a touchdown, they fire off a "broadside volley" (which, given the state of the team now, is fairly rarely, lol)
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
You guys love your guns.
Us mere peasants cannot fire guns in sports stadiums.... Those guys are hired "props" as the New England Patriots (the Tom Brady team that plays American Football) do the same thing. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a pirate ship on one end of the stadium and whenever they score a touchdown, they fire off a "broadside volley" (which, given the state of the team now, is fairly rarely, lol)
Still think it's pretty cool for a bunch of militia men to march up and unload a volley.
Wouldn't catch on in the UK. We tried flying Spitfires over the stadiums, but nobody noticed
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
Please stop for a moment and try to see the real message Sebster was making: ...to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless [insert any party name here] attack on [insert any one of the last 1000 bills, from the budget on down, in Congress here], because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yes, I made a slight edit. Because the particular party and the particular bill are entirely irrelevant to the point being made, so I removed them because some people just can't see past such things.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
Please stop for a moment and try to see the real message Sebster was making: ...to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless [insert any party name here] attack on [insert any one of the last 1000 bills, from the budget on down, in Congress here], because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yes, I made a slight edit. Because the particular party and the particular bill are entirely irrelevant to the point being made, so I removed them because some people just can't see past such things.
That only assumes that politics is forevermore a sausage factory.
Feth that.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
I wouldn't say so much that smoke and mirrors are a good thing, as much as they are a necessary, inevitable thing. People simply don't understand how laws and processes work, and what's worse is that they don't want to know. The first instinct of almost every voter is to ask how a new law will harm them, and typically they will only learn the negatives of the law. This is why politicians don't talk with complexity and nuance, but in bland soundbites. And it's why bills get passed with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: There is a difference between Evangellical and Christian. One distinction that you are missing. Evangellical describes a behavior not just a being. If a presidential candidate didn't engage in those behaviors and suppport a certain worldview, they wouldn't be Evangellicals(at least enough to affect someone's vote)
Actually, 'evangelical' describes a group of churches. Those churches typically espouse certain kinds of behaviour and political beliefs, and typically those members follows those beliefs and political views, but not always, because life and people and organisations are diverse and complex, and that's why stereotyping is a bad thing.
Also qualified is different from 'will pass laws I agree with'. Perry is 'qualified' to be President. However he would pass laws I find reprehensible. It is not bigotry to vote against someone like that.
No, but it is bigotry to hear that person belongs to a certain group, and then to just assume that person must follow all the traits common to people in that group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No... you just ditch trying to make a fething comprehensive plan.
You incrementally address the issues one-by-one.
Ie, prohibit pre-existing condition clauses. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Except just banning pre-existing clauses means people don't bother to get insurance. They just wait until they're sick. So you need the individual mandate. And because healthcare is beyond the budgets of many people, you need subsidies. To fund the subsidies you need to tax the higher end plans, and once that's in place then to make it clear and open to the market you need the exchanges. And there you go - you've got ACA.
Now, other parts like limited profit margins, employer mandate etc, those weren't essential, but really, once you commit to prohibiting pre-existing conditions, you need most of the ACA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That only assumes that politics is forevermore a sausage factory.
No, it merely looks at why politics is a sausage factory, and explains why. People ask all the time for politicians to be honest but when someone comes out and speaks honestly every freaks out. Gruber spoke about how ACA is a smoke and mirrors exercise... he spoke honestly about the process, and the response to that honesty was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense and point scoring efforts. The reaction actually proved why that approach is necessary.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
That's a bit melodramatic.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/06/25 03:29:07
“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.
Ya see Seb... that's all they had to do to convince the public.
The problem I'm yammering about, is that the political and media classes themselves never accurately explained how PPACA would work -- they only presented Obama's predictions about how wonderful it would be. Not the details of how it would allegedly work -- who would pay for it, and who would actually benefit.
We gotta pass it, in order to read it!
Bad fething policy seb... no one in their right mind should support this mechanism.
The PPACA was sold by Obama[i] himself on THREE BIG LIES:
1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!
3) If you voluntarily choose the Obamacare plan, it will be 14% to 20% CHEAPER!
THE PRESIDENT: …
One thing, Jon, you shook your head when I said that people would be able to choose the better plan because the notion was, well, people are mandated. Actually, any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it. And so you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan — I could keep my Acme insurance, just a high-deductible catastrophic plan — I would not be required to get the better one. If I chose to get the better one, it would be 14 to 20 percent cheaper than if I were going into the individual market. I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Just listen to him here... Plz, try to take the time:
As Gruber admitted... the plan when in fact THE PLAN was to hide the inner-mechanism of the PPACA from the "stupid" American voters, all along.
Feth that man.
On something of this magnitude, I don't buy into the idea that we must "break a few eggs" in order to make omelettes.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
That's a bit melodramatic.
Maybe so, but it isn't far from the truth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 03:31:57
