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.
... and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Musical theatre?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 22:45:29
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
... and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Musical theatre?
He could wish. Happy paid retirement home in happy town USA with shuffleboard and viagra as far as the eye could see. Good luck, Frazz. Best internet wishes to you and yours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 23:00:10
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
Sure, just how the D's had every right to suspend the 60 votes needed for conformation. But that doesn't change that fact that him calling this "unprecedented" is hilariously false, when his own party (and I don't remember him speaking out about it) did far worse with the main conformation process (them filibustering every nominee). His outrage is wholey partisan and hypocritical.
In unrelated news, the subreddit /r/altright just got banned (for reputedly violating site rules, including repeatedly advocating violence and genocide). The fascists (and they are actual fascists, this isn't just a word I'm using) are kicking up a fuss and it's hilarious.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Jesus...they're actually going to openly affirm that nutcase for Dept of education...
Do these people even read what they're voting for? They honestly believe DeVos is an appropriate choice?
Or are they just spineless suits falling in line?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
Co'tor Shas wrote: Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
If it wasn't for the Russian/Exxon ties/conflict potential...ongoing, disturbing theme with this administration...I'd actually be very much for Tillerson. That job is a motherfether and Tillerson has the international chops to handle it, IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
I don't know. There's Ben Carson? Or that gak EPA head who's made it his life's work to sue the EPA? That's some heady competition for the administration's Gakky McGakmaster title.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 23:42:59
It seems easier to name who Lord Commander Marmalade has chosen for his administration that isn't a total clusterfeth of a human being.
Hmm... Mattis seems like a good pick.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
Sure, just how the D's had every right to suspend the 60 votes needed for conformation. But that doesn't change that fact that him calling this "unprecedented" is hilariously false, when his own party (and I don't remember him speaking out about it) did far worse with the main conformation process (them filibustering every nominee). His outrage is wholey partisan and hypocritical.
In unrelated news, the subreddit /r/altright just got banned (for reputedly violating site rules, including repeatedly advocating violence and genocide). The fascists (and they are actual fascists, this isn't just a word I'm using) are kicking up a fuss and it's hilarious.
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
I prefer the term "unpresidented". It's delicious.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
I prefer the term "unpresidented". It's delicious.
This simple little spelling error may be one of the funniest and most harmless things he'll ever tweet XD
Co'tor Shas wrote: Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
If it wasn't for the Russian/Exxon ties/conflict potential...ongoing, disturbing theme with this administration...I'd actually be very much for Tillerson. That job is a motherfether and Tillerson has the international chops to handle it, IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
I don't know. There's Ben Carson? Or that gak EPA head who's made it his life's work to sue the EPA? That's some heady competition for the administration's Gakky McGakmaster title.
Like I said, I can only speak to what I know. Carson's role is relatively small in the grand scheme. We need a black guy? Put him there, he's "urban". The EPA person I have serious reservations about, but again, I don't know well enough myself to really comment on.
I don't know about you but my multi-billion dollar oil business is tired of paying meager fees to pump a fortune from your ground, so just sell it to me for nothing and let me be richer already.
While the BUndy's might have brought this to national attention as an issue, the irony is that the sale of public land is highly unlikely to really benefit people like Bundy. Ranchers don't have the money to buy up lands like this their profit margins are too narrow. Large agri-corps are more likely to be the ones who actually buy the land for such uses, or mining and oil companies. I do agree that if people realized the depth of public lands in the US, they probably would oppose this almost universally. Few people live far from a national part, or public land trust.
It's part of the general stupidity of Republican economic ideology that "public" = "no profit." As pointed out, public lands produce billions in revenue for sporting, hunting, and hiking around the country. Highways facilitate so much commerce the idea of labeling them as "nonprofit" is ludicrously absurd. Public works have always been a source of huge amounts of revenue and economic opportunity, it's just not necessarily a direct one.
cuda1179 wrote: Um....yeah, it was supposed to be a zero cost bill, but isn't there a massive build-up of debt in the not too distant future?
Sort of. There was an accounting trick inside ACA where they made it zero cost over 10 years but having revenue items kick in sooner than some expenditures. But the effect of this is way overstated, so that after the 10 year period ACA will cost more than it brings in, the amount is pretty negligible if the system is left as it is.
There is another issue though, in that the current mandate penalty is quite low, to the point where the price difference for a healthy person getting insurance is too great compared to just paying the mandate. The difference can be fixed with an increase to the mandate penalty or an increase in insurance subsidies, and it is likely ACA was built knowing this fix would have to come in down the line. Given the popularity of the mandate, it's likely a hypothetical fix will rely more on subsidies than on a mandate increase. So that will make the deal more expensive.
But still, the numbers we're talking about are dwarfed by the money government already kicks in for health insurance, and dwarfed by Bush's medicare fix in the early 2000s. The idea that those kinds of expenditures are just accepted, but a much cheaper scheme that expands healthcare coverage by 20 million and prevents rejection due to pre-existing conditions should be dismissed as too expensive is a fundamentally broken analysis.
Also, I don't have a high-end policy (Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield), and I still have seen an 86% increase in my premiums in the last 5 years, with a raise in deductibles, all while having ZERO claims.
We've been through this before, you are one person. Your experience does not define the experiences of 300 million people.
“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 IS the experience of 300 million people, though? I mean, people cherry pick success stories, too; that's not really more accurate than the examples of people with nearly-useless insurance, but they are often used to dismiss any criticisms. And this whole bit of "# of people covered" is kind of a meaningless statistic when a) it's mandatory and b) it doesn't tell you how effective said coverage even is.
Oh FFS. This is one of those things you're supposed to be very cautious about, since there's no going back once you give up that resource. But I guess we don't need careful management of state-owned resources when we can just privatize the whole thing for the benefit of wealthy campaign donors. Drain the swamp indeed...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even some republicans thing this is a really stupid idea. From a previous sale proposal:
"Selling off our public lands to reduce the deficit would be like selling the house to pay the light bill," said Philip Carlson, Utah coordinator for the group Republicans for Environmental Protection. "America's public lands are a lasting endowment that supports local economies. They're magnets that attract sportsmen, backcountry trail riders, hikers and campers year after year. It makes no sense to sell off this endowment, especially in a down economy."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 03:48:44
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I wouldn't get too worked up about the land sale. It sounds like it's just a small cadre of interested Republicans in states with huge amounts of public land (Utah, Nevada, Wyoming) who are backing it. And that said, there probably is a lot of public that that is functionally useless and could be sold, such that just dismissing any and all proposals is probably unreasonable.
My concern would be that land is being sold with no consideration for how it might effect animal migrations, environmental toxicity, or actual use by the public (just to name a few), not that someone wants to sell that land in the first place. I can't say I care much for the in article example of a public forest that has been cordoned off by the rich so they can monopolize a public resource for private use. That's just sleazy. Eminent Domain that gak.
Sentinel1 wrote: I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service.
The fact that border protection comes in as #4 on your list should tell you something about the stupidity of this wall. Anyway, to go through your list;
1) Arguing for spending more money in order to justify a plan to spend more money is called the sunk cost fallacy. What you've already spent is gone, the only economic argument is a comparison of the likely new costs, against the expected benefit.
2) The idea that a long wall will have a large moral component is a fundamentally weird claim. If you're after moral benefit why not host some parades, or have government pay for free tacos for everyone, or something.
3) Justifying government spending through employment is silly, because that same effect comes from any government spending. The same argument can be used to justify paying people to dig holes, and then paying other people to fill the holes up again. Government will spend money, that will create employment, and so the question on where government spends money comes down to the merits of that project.
4) It's a pretty clear indication of the effectiveness of the wall and it's need that you drop this claim in here at #4. The need for greater border protection is dubious given that more illegals are now returning home than are coming in, and there's little to indicate a wall will provide any effective measure against people attempting to enter the country. There are reasons that people who are active in border security have called for funding for surveillance, patrols and active location of illegal immigrants who are in the US, and none of them have been asking for a wall.
As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it.
Ford is still building their small cars in Mexico. They just cancelled plans to build a new plant, and are instead building the car from an existing Mexican plant. Ford and Trump just played a con job on this, by announcing 700 new jobs in the to build totally unrelated batteries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rootbeard wrote: What IS the experience of 300 million people, though? I mean, people cherry pick success stories, too; that's not really more accurate than the examples of people with nearly-useless insurance, but they are often used to dismiss any criticisms. And this whole bit of "# of people covered" is kind of a meaningless statistic when a) it's mandatory and b) it doesn't tell you how effective said coverage even is.
Total industry studies have shown across all people that insurance has increased considerably more slower under ACA than it did before. And on top of that there's now an extensive subsidy system in place, so that the final price of insurance for many people is much than the sticker price.
It's just plain fething comical that people complain about weak coverage under ACA. One of the big complaints against ACA was that it brought in minimum levels of insurance, so that the old, very cheap plans that offered very little were gone. So what the feth do people actually want? The freedom to have schemes with very little insurance coverage, or the guarantee that you're insurance will be worth a damn. Truth is people will moan either way - that's the nature of health, people feel entitled to everything and resent every penny they have to spend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: You are giving Trump and the Cabinet Secretaries too much credit. The federal depts were created by Congress and can only be fundamentally changed by Congress. Let's look at the Dept of Esd for example. Sure Betsy Devos is very different politically and in terms of her education philosophy than Obamas appointee Arne Duncan so she'll give different speeches and advocate different approaches. However just like Duncan her ability to actually affect public education in the US will be severely limited. Congress created the Dept of Ed and only Congress can dismantle it. Congress determines the funding for the Dept of Ed and Congress passes the federal laws that create the federal programs that determine how that funding is allocated. All the Dept of Ed does is administrate the federal laws created by Congress. Devos can't change public education in the US with a memo. At best she can make changes to operational guidelines. It's a caretaker position because the president needs somebody to delegate to that can report on the efficacy and enforcement of Federal education laws and programs. The Dept of Ed pretty much just sends federal money to the states and provides token oversight and record keeping. The Dept of Ed has 5000 employees, the state of CA alone has over 10000 public schools for K-12 education the Ed Sec has at best/worst a minimal impact on the US public school system.
You're confusing formality with actual power. While formal power may be vested in congress, real actual power exists with the person with the ability to make strategic decisions about the direction of the agency on a daily basis.
Nor do employee numbers matter, what matters is how DeVos chooses to allocate funds, and how she chooses to enforce existing laws. We've already seen her ambivalence to enforcing existing laws on measuring the post education employment of colleges eligible for government funds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hence why, Trump got something like $2 Billion dollars of "favorable free airtime" during the primary, that effectively drowned out the other candidates. Hence, the Clintons chose their form of destructor, poorly:
That argument makes zero sense. Trump also got vastly more free airtime than Clinton during the general election. And Trump got a much higher percentage of favourable coverage than Clinton. Trying to claim that as a media conspiracy to help Clinton is an active rejection of reality.
Trump got piles of free media attention, both in the primaries and afterwards because Trump is a circus act, and an irresponsible media was drawn to covering that freak show. It's that simple. It's the same reason that media attention focused in on the constant stream of scandals, both real, beat up and utterly fictional, and spend barely any time at all on policy at all. Because covering scandals, even stupid and pretend ones, is exciting, whips up the bases of both parties and gets them watching, while policy coverage means people have to like pay some real attention, think and maybe even learn something important. That's hard work, and so it doesn't rate. And so the media doesn't cover it.
This is the real lesson here. All this nonsense about what media is biased is just a noisy distraction. The real story is that stuff covered during 2016 was irrelevant crap, no matter which candidate it favoured. And if people keep accepting that kind of coverage of politics, then idiots like Trump will continue to flourish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Also, refresh my memory here, but didn't someone get fired for unethical behavior, then immeidiately get hired by the Clinton Campaign in a rather cushy position?
You're probably thinking of Roger Stone, who was fired from his position as CEO of FOX news when his decades of sexual abuse of female staff members was uncovered. He was immediately hired by Trump as a campaign advisor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, John McCain sang 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'. This did not in fact mean that all Americans are bloodthirsty loons who want to destroy Iran. Only a total would make that conclusion.
And yet many people hold that opinion about Iran, based on some made for TV protests by a radical minority in Iran.
So yeah, the hostility against Iran really is an idiocracy thing.
Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
Did you know US students come and study at institutions around the globe? Because of the hyper specialisation of the tertiary sector, often the very best in lots of niche studies are to be found in one place in the world, and that can be anywhere in the world. So students travel, because gaining the most knowledge in any field is a global endeavour. Tertiary education is a global affair, your half baked nationalism has no place there.
And more than that, even on the level of teaching more base line education, it is clearly in the US best interests to draw the best and brightest to its colleges. Many stay and take on the role as the next key drivers of progress and economic growth. And the ones that return go home with very positive views of your country, because the US is a much more fun place to be than Iran. This is called softpower, and it matters way more in bringing the world around to a US POV than all those tanks and fighter jets you love spending piles of cash on.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/02/02 05:01:07
“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.
Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
You know, if Trump ever picked up a book he'd know we exist only by the grace of our allies, which he is bound and determined to piss off at every turn.
I just want someone in Washington to kick in the door to the oval office and start smacking him till he grows the feth up...
3000
4000 
