American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 22

Rev BS

01-30-14, 01:15

I completely disagree. I do not expect a handout or an advantage. I expect and opportunity. If America stopped giving handouts and got back to expecting its citizens to earn their own keep and to strive for excellence and not mediocrity then the same elements that propelled America to greatness would keep it in good stead. When you have the left preaching doom, gloom, race, and a million reasons why people are picked on, less advantaged, etc. Etc. It only drives them down thinking they have to accept their current position, status, finances etc. If instead we rewarded hard work, intellectual thought, excellence etc. And stopped with all the excuses we would remain exceptional on the World stage. If we instead behave like the mediocre handout striving don't leave me behind masses then we will become more and more similar by regression toward the social mean we have chosen to emulate. When there are true winners and losers in any sport or life, the losers or initially less successful get better. In all cases they improve faster than in sports where there is not "score." In many cases the initial underdogs over take the "obvious winners." Not thinking of ourselves as too this or too that but rather as works in progress heading toward an individual defined goal would a great start to a wonderful American future.

Your comment about mongering is interesting. It is only the supply that is adapting and setting the stage for their own success. I applaud them for it. The consumers can choose the threshold at which they stop supporting the activity. In Obama's World we would need to offset the increase in "ask" with subsidies to mongers with incomes less than X and we would need to open free schools for the supply side so the poorest performers could be elevated while we apply a tax to the highest performers so that we can spread the wealth evenly.

Pete.I whole-heartedly agree on individual responsibility & work ethics. Where we disagree is what is the role of government in all this. Your take on mongering miss what I was trying to imply, that is, nothing stays the same forever. Yes, greatness has not quite left the shores of America, talent is still coming from all over the world every day. But the rest of the world has caught up with America in the last few decades in most areas, and America is now on a slippery slope in terms of excess, self indulgence and discipline. Yes, I do believe in a role of government in correcting & recovering competitiveness & work ethics.

TejanoLibre

01-30-14, 20:31

Why Bother voting if your going to be unhappy with the results anyway?

Democrat or Republican?

Or Like Me and My Views:

Rejecting Politics Is Also A Political Stance.

But Rejecting Pussy is a Homosexual Act!

Like that famous Anus once said, "Can't we all just get along?

Why don't we start a website called American Politics During The Obama Presidency dot com?

Then the Boys that would rather fight than fuck can waste their breath and time on that site.

Instead of this one.

Just a thought.

I know that what happens in the USA matters to most of you but.....

Fuck It!

I give up.

Thanks Anyway,

TL.

TL.

Peter Sideburn

01-30-14, 21:30

I actually agree with your statement completely. We may differ on how or what the role would be but I bet we could sit in a room and find common ground on many issues. My biggest issue is the fact that our legislators and President do not even try to do the same. I agree with some of TL's points as well but I refuse to throw in the the towel because of some losers in DC. I think it is great that the World has caught up in a sense because, "A rising tide raises all ships." I need the US to be exceptional, but I would love it if all countries were as well. True competition with a gentle and honest spirit would likely get us all there.

Pete.

I whole-heartedly agree on individual responsibility & work ethics. Where we disagree is what is the role of government in all this. Your take on mongering miss what I was trying to imply, that is, nothing stays the same forever. Yes, greatness has not quite left the shores of America, talent is still coming from all over the world every day. But the rest of the world has caught up with America in the last few decades in most areas, and America is now on a slippery slope in terms of excess, self indulgence and discipline. Yes, I do believe in a role of government in correcting & recovering competitiveness & work ethics.

Don B

01-31-14, 00:14

Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.

Tiny12

01-31-14, 12:49

Originally Posted by RevBS
Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.

Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.Don, While you are right, practically this system will not work in America today with Obamacare. If government mandates that individuals have low-deductible insurance, and the physician does not accept insurance, then only a small percentage of the population will use the concierge physician. It's a pity, because this sort of thing, combined with catastrophic (very-high-deductible) insurance would improve quality and lower costs.

And, "future mother-in-law"? Marriage? Black Shirt, we've had our differences, but please, don't do it. Think about it carefully. And having a foursome with your wife, mother-in-law and niece is sick. (Jk).

Jackson

01-31-14, 13:34

Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.And I suggest that anyone who is so indoctrinated with liberal ideology as to be incapable of comparing the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina will never understand the big picture.

Jackson

01-31-14, 14:19

The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.

Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.

Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.

We all know people who run down to the doctor's office for every little sniffle, don't we?

In addition, relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

We all know that people in general are much less likely to be concerned with the price of such services when they themselves are not actually paying the bill.

Anyway, as my friend El Queso suggested once in this forum, when you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover windshield wipers, oil changes or tires, these being things you have to pay for yourself separately.

Imagine for a moment what auto insurance would cost if such policies included coverage for windshield wipers, oil changes and tires (abet with relatively meaningless co-pays).

Well, that's what ObamaCare mandates, and as a result we are witnessing the results of a liberal policy that is bound to fail because it is based on a manifestly inaccurate model of human behavior.

The solution is easy: Sandra Fluke can buy her own fucking birth control.

Of course I'm sure my detractors will suggest "that anyone who can even begin to compare health insurance to auto insurance probably knows and understands less than nothing about health insurance or auto insurance".

Flame on!

Thanks,

Jax

Tres3

01-31-14, 21:08

I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

Meaningless co-pays fit the something-for-nothing model to a T. I was a participant in a medical plan that originally had NO co-pays, and that plan almost went broke. When the plan instituted a modest $250 deductible per year together with a $50.00 co-pay for doctor's office visits, it became solvent almost overnight. These were not poor people. Almost every participant who wanted to made an inflation adjusted upper five figure income, and many had six figure incomes.

Tres3.

Rev BS

01-31-14, 21:42

[QUOTE=Jackson;437970]Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.[ / I].

Flame on!

Thanks,

Jax / QUOTE].

So what happened over-night in American healthcare? Who benefited the most? Ever heard of HMOs? Today, any doctor will give up to 80 per cent discount if you pay them cash and hug you with joy. But will the hospitals? Yes, but can you afford it even after a 50% discount? Do Americans have cash? No, not for a long time.

Rock Harders

01-31-14, 22:26

I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.

We all know people who run down to the doctor's office for every little sniffle, don't we?

In addition, relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

We all know that people in general are much less likely to be concerned with the price of such services when they themselves are not actually paying the bill.

Anyway, as my friend El Queso suggested once in this forum, when you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover windshield wipers, oil changes or tires, these being things you have to pay for yourself separately.

Imagine for a moment what auto insurance would cost if such policies included coverage for windshield wipers, oil changes and tires (abet with relatively meaningless co-pays).

Well, that's what ObamaCare mandates, and as a result we are witnessing the results of a liberal policy that is bound to fail because it is based on a manifestly inaccurate model of human behavior.

The solution is easy: Sandra Fluke can buy her own fucking birth control.

Of course I'm sure my detractors will suggest "that anyone who can even begin to compare health insurance to auto insurance probably knows and understands less than nothing about health insurance or auto insurance".

Flame on!

Thanks,

JaxYou might have a valid point if the "windshield wipers, oil changes, and tune-ups" of medical care (lets say for sake of argument those would be a broken leg, a bad cut with dozens of stitches, a dislocated shoulder, some sort of respiratory infection) in the United States were even remotely comparable in retail price to actual windshield wiper replacements, oil changes, or tune-ups. You are well aware that if you go to a hospital in the United States with a broken leg with no insurance and "pay cash" that the bill could easily be tens of thousands of dollars. Every civilized country in the world (and even some less-than-civilized places such as Argentina and Brasil) view healthcare as a social responsibility that everybody is entitled access to. Obamacare surely need refinement but at least it is a step in the right direction in that it attempts to give everyone affordable access to healthcare.

Tiny12

02-01-14, 00:08

You are well aware that if you go to a hospital in the United States with a broken leg with no insurance and "pay cash" that the bill could easily be tens of thousands of dollars.As you know that's because the USA has a broken system where insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate lower, but still high prices for services from hospitals. The guy without insurance is either left out in the cold, paying ridiculous prices, or he just elects not to pay. When the free market is allowed to operate and consumers shop for services, for example with corrective eye surgery and outpatient cosmetic surgery, costs are low and quality is high. Singapore has done something like this, where people pay 100% for the small stuff but are covered for catastrophes.

Every civilized country in the world (and even some less-than-civilized places such as Argentina and Brasil) view healthcare as a social responsibility that everybody is entitled access to. Obamacare surely need refinement but at least it is a step in the right direction in that it attempts to give everyone affordable access to healthcare.Before Obamacare, everyone in the USA could get healthcare. Admittedly there was the problem of those who made enough money that they didn't qualify for Medicaid, and who chose not to get any type of insurance. When faced with catastrophic accidents or illnesses they could be bankrupted. Not to say that something shouldn't have been done about that, but only a very small % of the population was affected.

With Obamacare, if you're healthy you can choose to remain uninsured and pay a small penalty. Then if something catastrophic happens, you can go out and get insurance at the same rate everyone else pays. This is not a fair or efficient system, and it's going to create problems as a high % of the healthy will choose not to be insured. It's ironic, a system to cause more Americans to have health insurance could have the opposite effect, once people figure out they can game the system.

Obamacare is not a step in the right direction. It's doubling down on a failed system. We can't afford to pay 20% of GDP for health care.

Rev BS

02-01-14, 06:16

And, "future mother-in-law"? Marriage? Black Shirt, we've had our differences, but please, don't do it. Think about it carefully. And having a foursome with your wife, mother-in-law and niece is sick. (Jk).Sanity is the ability to hover between reality and fantasy. I have always been a fantasy guy, and have enjoy every minute of it up to now. Nothing will really change, this has been a gradual evolutionary process for some time now.

There is a season to everything in life.

Dccpa

02-03-14, 12:17

Could you please post a link that insurance policy cancellations were not counted in your state. (1) Concerning your situation, I have little sympathy for it. First, your 'hardship' pales in comparison to that of someone who needed healthcare and was denied, or (2) was forced into bankruptcy getting it. Second, based on your income, you may be eligible for subsidies to make your insurance more affordable. (3) Third, we all pay the costs when someone with inadequate insurance needs emergency care. (4) Fourth, in addition to people under the age of 30, people in your situation have been made eligible for a hardship exemption, making you eligible to apply for the same type of catastrophic coverage you claim you are being denied.So much to reply to and so little time.

1. Don't recall classifying my situation as a hardship or asking for your sympathy. So stuff it.

2. So now people were being forced into bankruptcy getting health insurance? Seen several people go bankrupt because they did not to have health insurance and got ill, but went bankrupt getting health insurance? To quote a certain liberal, link.

3. Guess what, you still pay for the others. The only difference is that you will pay more as the insurance companies are already gaming the system and you get to pay for the added layer of governmental administration.

4. If you are speaking to the claim that you can still keep your insurance, that exemption is a figment of liberal imagination. Not that the insurance companies would have had time to reoffer the cancelled plans and get them approved by the state insurance commissioners, but our liberal governor stopped them from doing so. The only hardship exemption I am aware of would let me avoid the penalty for not having insurance for the fist year. You know, the insurance that I previously had before an elitist government took it away from me.

The links you requested are below. As an added bonus, I am including the link from today where Obama admits that the Tea Party party groups. Wait, didn't' the liberals claim it was even-handed?

"Obama said "some boneheaded decisions" were to blame for extra scrutiny the IRS had given to conservative Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, and that the issue had been cleared up during "multiple hearings" in Congress."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/obama-spars-fox-news-host-testy-pre-super-235921418--nfl.html

First the AP report which greatly understates the cancellations:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/02/associated-press-says-millions-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-of-obamacare/

Next, the CBO report:

http://americanglob.com/2013/02/05/seven-million-people-will-lose-their-health-insurance-under-obamacare/

Respond if you want, but my busy season has started and I won't have time to reply.

Esten

02-04-14, 03:35

4. If you are speaking to the claim that you can still keep your insurance, that exemption is a figment of liberal imagination. Not that the insurance companies would have had time to reoffer the cancelled plans and get them approved by the state insurance commissioners, but our liberal governor stopped them from doing so. The only hardship exemption I am aware of would let me avoid the penalty for not having insurance for the fist year. You know, the insurance that I previously had before an elitist government took it away from me.For people who had their plans cancelled, the one year hardship exemption allows them to buy catastrophic coverage. Not necessarily the exact same plan they had before, but another catastrophic plan. I just looked up one in your state, it took me 5 minutes:

CATASTROPHIC
PLAN BENEFITS
3 primary care physician visits at no cost
Low monthly premium
No additional costs after deductible
$6,350 Deductible
$6,350 Out-of-pocket maximum
YOUR MONTHLY COST $239.17

Thanks for the link on cancellations not being counted in your state. I didn't realize some states weren't reporting numbers for this. I haven't followed it too closely, as it was fertile ground for obfuscatory manipulation by critics. We know some cancellations involved automatic replacement with an alternate QHP. What matters is the subset that hasn't been able to find comparable or better coverage at a similar price. Those numbers are unclear, though a legitimate issue. Re: forced into bankruptcy, I said this was due to needing / getting healthcare, not heathcare insurance.

Rev BS

02-04-14, 20:30

Have not been able to catch the full interview yet, but the snippets that Fox is so proudly ensnaring its viewers of the Obama interview leads one to conclude that Obama is the "Saviour" of Fox's ratings. In the so-call 10 minute pre-SuperBowl introductory interview, I see a "Righteous but Desperate" O'Reilly leaning forward to make his points about Obama's lies and failings. His role, as the leader of the "tired angry old white men", a heavy burden on his shoulders.

But like Ali's "float like a butterly, sting like a bee", a very relaxed Obama just lean back into his armchair, the accusations disappearing like jabs into the air. Obama has disappointed almost everyone, but I think our expectations for change too high and I for one, was naive enough to underestimate the hate and opposition that his presidency would generate. With nothing worthwhile to say but needing publicity, Donald Trump has chimed in to say that Obama did not show presidential character by not wearing a tie to do the interview. Him and his front hair patch that must have come from his former's wife Ivana's pubic bush.

Obama gave Fox publicity & ratings that they never could have fantasize. Just watch Fox News now, and you will see every anchor & show host just oozing with outrage that they could be bias and unfair. A good laugh, but a sad state of American affairs. Meanwhile, O'Silly's coffers are brimming. Who actually goes and watch his shows on the road? And his books? Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.

Jackson

02-04-14, 20:40

Jackson

02-04-14, 20:59

Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.

Rev BS

02-04-14, 21:45

Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.With his Northeast upbringing, and his liberal educational background, O'Reilly's politics is probably more left than right. At worse, he is on middle ground. I think Obama easily sees that, so that is why the banter is for public consumption. But with Fox seasonings.

His present mega business empire is a long way from his days on Inside Edition. I give him kudos for his instincts for where the wind blows and the scent of money. Would it be fair to call him a "front man"? Albeit, a very successful one. But Jimmy Swaggert was very successful, too.

Tiny12

02-05-14, 14:43

What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

According to the report, federal subsidies [for health insurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work," CBO said.

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.

Don B

02-05-14, 16:54

Rev BS

02-05-14, 19:07

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik Wemple

Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."

What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

According to the report, federal subsidies [forhealthinsurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work," CBO said.

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.

Tiny12

02-05-14, 19:30

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik WempleI read that this morning, it's weak. For example:

Obamacare’s impact, the CBO concluded, would lessen the supply of labor by encouraging certain folks not to work: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked. . . .”

In other words, Obamacare discourages people from working.

Okay Reverend, if you're going to accept the logic in the Washington Post blog, then you should never criticize Libertarian-leaning politicians for "cuts" when they're actually just trying to slow the rate of growth in federal spending. Actually, I don't think that's something you're guilty of here, although others are.

Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."

Yes, it's very possible that some people like Esten (see his post above) will give up looking for work because of Obamacare, and therefore no longer be counted as "unemployed." I wish I could find the CBO report, but can't. Anyway, listening to Van Hollen's testimony, he does say the short term effect will be to reduce unemployment because of the economic stimulus associated with Obamacare. However, in the longer term, Obamacare is a job destroyer.

Esten

02-05-14, 23:22

I might quit my job and remain unemployed, or try to get a low-paying job. Not sure if I'll make enough to ever come back to BA, but those government subsidies I'll become eligible for are too juicy to resist.

Rev BS

02-06-14, 11:50

Better yet, how about just once one of our leftists attempting to give a moral justification for their beliefs. Don.I know you have been around a long time, and I know you have more knowledge in your little finger that I have in my head. But I thought you might like this little contribution from me.

http://www.trueactivist.com/nurse-reveals-the-top-5-regrets-people-make-on-their-deathbed/

The 5 regrets people have before they kick the bucket:

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I didn't work so hard.

3. I wish I've had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I've stay in touch with my friends.

5. I wish I've let myself be happier.

I am quite sure you are more than adequately covered, my friend. Myself, I am still working on all of them, except, for #2.

WorldTravel69

02-06-14, 15:20

I think most of us can agree on this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zqQubSHRd8

TejanoLibre

02-12-14, 02:27

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is 'cute,' but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more 'safe' according to the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

TL.

WorldTravel69

02-12-14, 19:59

You are right on some and wrong on others.

What gun laws have congress passed since Sandy Hook?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/gun-control-newtown_n_4425157.html

What are you doing kissing up to Jackson and his cronies?

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is 'cute,' but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more 'safe' according to the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

TL.

Jackson

02-12-14, 21:35

What gun laws have congress passed since Sandy Hook?Other than outright banning private citizens from possessing weapons, exactly what other gun laws did you want Congress to pass?

And please don't answer by posting yet another cartoon that you can't explain.

Thanks,

Jax.

WorldTravel69

02-12-14, 22:40

Where did you dream that up?

Nobody is trying to take any ones gun away, except the criminals and nut jobs.

The only reason anyone would need a multi-magazine gun is if they need to shoot all those beer cans in their back yard.

Other than outright banning private citizens from possessing weapons, exactly what other gun laws did you want Congress to pass?

And please don't answer by posting yet another cartoon that you can't explain.

Thanks,

Jax.

Member #4112

02-12-14, 23:22

WT that's a pretty weak response to TL's post, which is a take off on "you might be a redneck".

The thing that makes the post really funny is it points out the liberal / progressive schizophrenia when it comes to what they see as "good" and "bad".

Need a note to the school for your kid to take an aspirin but getting an abortion without parental consent is OK?

Big whoop on Sandy Hook. Sure it was a tragedy the kids and teachers were killed but where is all the liberal empathy for all the kids killed in automobile accidents? No liberal protesting for banning cars.

I noticed the Obamanation has changed ObamaCare again to allow companies with 50 to 199 employees to skip the penalties for another year. Wonder if he is feeling the heat for all the cancellations which are coming in September, October and November. Skipping the penalties is not going to stop the insurance companies from following the law which will force them to cancel non-ObamaCare conforming policies. I guess it will be much like when Obama waved his magic wand and told the insurance companies to re-issue non-compliant individual policies which the insurance companies declined to do as it was AGAINST THE LAW.

TejanoLibre

02-13-14, 16:15

Where did you dream that up?

Nobody is trying to take any ones gun away, except the criminals and nut jobs.

The only reason anyone would need a multi-magazine gun is if they need to shoot all those beer cans in their back yard.So I met a nice Kid on the beach in Texas and he showed me his M-16 and I asked him what he shot with it.

He said "Cans!

Cans?

Yes, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Africans, all sorts of "Cans!

He must have been joking !

Property of the US Airforce written all over that smoking hot M16 !

Reminds me of the clerk at the Porn store that sold hand grenades and Laws Rockets!

TL.

Punter 127

02-13-14, 22:20

Nobody is trying to take any ones gun away.[snip]

I think it's also safe to assume that you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.

'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In' Dianne Feinstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

WorldTravel69

02-13-14, 23:47

Or use them, turn them in.

My Brother didn't use his. But he had it in his hand when two 13 year old kids knocked on his door.

So, the next day or so, when my brother was not home, the kids broke into his house and stole it.

So, you see if you don't use it get rid of it, or at least don't leave it laying around.

I think it's also safe to assume that you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.

'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In' Dianne Feinstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

Jackpot

02-14-14, 11:14

Wow, Tejano has got quite a skill in nailing down issues and opening them up.

Good job buddy!

Carry on...

Jackpot.

TejanoLibre

02-14-14, 15:19

Wow, Tejano has got quite a skill in nailing down issues and opening them up.

Good job buddy!

Carry on...

Jackpot.Thanks JP!

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/s261x260/1781899_10202581959205623_2144896843_n.jpg

Take Care,

TL.

Esten

02-15-14, 01:51

TL didn't write that crap, the conspicuous absence of dozens of exclamation marks was a dead giveaway! It's internet spam.

It is however masterfully written, probably by someone with a deep understanding of psychological programming and manipulation. It is full of falsehoods, superficial comparisons, and narrow, isolated anecdotes that are far from representative. For example the last one, nobody's Constitutional right to defend themselves is being stripped. That is false. But that's what works with many Conservatives. Bonding with their anti-government potshots. LOL! Here's a good question. Why do you think there is so much of this misleading stuff on the right, but not on the left?

Nobody said the right wing wasn't endlessly entertaining. Got to love how Mitch McConnell's Kentucky Tea Party challenger immediately started attacking him, after Ted Cruz forced him to make a responsible vote to avoid government default. And Sarah Palin is suggesting Christie is lying about Bridgegate. 2014 is shaping up to be the year of right wing cannabalism, plenty of entertainment ahead.

Tiny12

02-15-14, 03:28

If you can get arrested...but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. (Tiny's note: What other country in the world would award people who enter illegally with citizenship?)

If you MUST show your identification...but not to vote for who runs the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

TL didn't write that crap, the conspicuous absence of dozens of exclamation marks was a dead giveaway! It's internet spam. It is however masterfully written, probably by someone with a deep understanding of psychological programming and manipulation. It is full of falsehoods, superficial comparisons, and narrow, isolated anecdotes that are far from representative. Yes, this is indeed crap, that makes absolutely no sense. It exists for the sole purpose of giving one of the major political parties a leg up in elections. The Democrats who came up with this are not, however, idiots. In fact, like Nestor Kirchner and Hugo Chavez, they are political geniuses, and these are some of the ways they buy votes and stay in power.

TejanoLibre

02-15-14, 07:06

Yes, this is indeed crap, that makes absolutely no sense. It exists for the sole purpose of giving one of the major political parties a leg up in elections. The Democrats who came up with this are not, however, idiots. In fact, like Nestor Kirchner and Hugo Chavez, they are political geniuses, and these are some of the ways they buy votes and stay in power.Of course I did NOT write that Boys!

I would not waste my time on Political B. S unless it was humorous and in my Parties favor.

If you are going to quote me then please show the entire quote so none of the humor is lost in translation.

Thanks,

TL.

Best quote of the Day:

"she drinks whiskey, and she swears, and she is a republican, which makes her a low, foul creature.".

From "Stagecoach" Mary Fields

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fields

Absolutely worth reading!

She could run for President

WorldTravel69

02-16-14, 04:15

Darrel Issa's is locked on the IRS, how long ago was that?

His record:

http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.com/2012/06/darrell-issas-long-criminal-record.html

And Obama Care for All. The Republicans want you to not have inexpensive Health Care.

What Greedy Bastards. They and their Insurance Companies just you want to pay more for YOUR Health Care.

Esten

02-16-14, 15:11

The Democrats who came up with this are not, however, idiots. In fact, like Nestor Kirchner and Hugo Chavez, they are political geniuses, and these are some of the ways they buy votes and stay in power.Brilliant, absolutely brilliant Tiny. My hat off to you. You figured it out. Democrats have been spamming the internet with anti-government writings that are so absurd, they are sure to make anti-government folks (AKA Republicans) look bad. In turn this alienates voters from Republicans and helps Obama stay in power.

But it's even deeper than this. I know I can trust you guys to keep this here on AP, amongst us mongers.

In fact the entire Tea Party movement is an Obama strategy to maintain power. He figured the best way to sink his opponents was to damage their credibility and promote internal division. To achieve both objectives, he formed a secret group to infiltrate the right wing, from the grass roots level all the way up to the top. Big names like Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, some of them might be Obama plants. Of course there are many real Tea Party members and sympathizers, but they've been pulled along and encouraged by Obama's plants and stealth propaganda. In the meantime, the twin goals of voter alienation and internal division are coming to fruition. Tiny is right, Obama is a genius.

The next time you are with a group of fellow conservatives, you might want to look at the guy next to you and ask yourself, is this guy real or an Obama plant ? I'm just saying.

Tiny12

02-16-14, 19:51

Esten and T.L., You're both smart, so I assume you're being facetious. But just in case, I intended to say that the following don't make common sense. Shrewd politicians on the left made these proposals or policies because they thought they would get them votes, and don't much care if they're idiotic or bad for the country:

1. Give citizenship to people who entered and remain in the United States illegally.

2. Allow people to vote without identification.

3. Spend more government money (years after the end of the recession but before the 2012 and 2014 elections) because that will reduce federal debt later on.

4. Grant long term unemployment benefits to people without making them diligently look for work and accept available jobs.

5. Make banks or government knock off mortgage debt in excess of the value of a house.

T.L., I enjoyed your post and realize it was meant to be humorous. Politicians from both political parties support a couple of the idiocies, like military aid for Egypt. And, as Esten and WT69 point out, some items in the list, including a couple paraphrased above, haven't become law. Yet.

Tiny12

02-16-14, 21:12

And Obama Care for All. The Republicans want you to not have inexpensive Health Care.

What Greedy Bastards. They and their Insurance Companies just you want to pay more for YOUR Health Care.Ha! Obamacare was a huge giveaway to the insurance companies. Look at the share price of Aetna, up 130%. Insurance companies will have more business and less competition. Health care costs will continue to go up. Obamacare fixed nothing.

Now that the Tea Party has more power in the Republican Party, the Greedy Rent Seeking Bastards are working your side of the aisle instead.

Tres3

02-17-14, 00:14

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant Tiny. My hat off to you. You figured it out. Democrats have been spamming the internet with anti-government writings that are so absurd, they are sure to make anti-government folks (AKA Republicans) look bad. In turn this alienates voters from Republicans and helps Obama stay in power.

But it's even deeper than this. I know I can trust you guys to keep this here on AP, amongst us mongers.

In fact the entire Tea Party movement is an Obama strategy to maintain power. He figured the best way to sink his opponents was to damage their credibility and promote internal division. To achieve both objectives, he formed a secret group to infiltrate the right wing, from the grass roots level all the way up to the top. Big names like Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, some of them might be Obama plants. Of course there are many real Tea Party members and sympathizers, but they've been pulled along and encouraged by Obama's plants and stealth propaganda. In the meantime, the twin goals of voter alienation and internal division are coming to fruition. Tiny is right, Obama is a genius.

The next time you are with a group of fellow conservatives, you might want to look at the guy next to you and ask yourself, is this guy real or an Obama plant ? I'm just saying.I think that Esten wants to be reincarnated as a satirist.

Tres3.

Rev BS

02-17-14, 04:24

Tiny12

02-17-14, 16:31

I think that Esten wants to be reincarnated as a satirist.

Tres3.Satire or changing the subject are your only options if you're trying to defend some of these positions.

Member #4112

02-17-14, 21:13

It is funny to watch the insurance companies and large hospital corporations who supported ObamaCare when it was first being proposed now becoming very nervous as they see their projected profits from ObamaCare slipping away due the beast the Democrats created.

When Obama was first proposing this boondoggle he got the insurance carriers and hospital corporations on board with the tantalizing vision of:

For the insurance companies, everyone would have to buy insurance, increasing their revenue from premiums while offering more expensive policies which conformed to the new ObamaCare coverage requirements. Those in lower income brackets would receive subsidies which would be paid to the insurance companies to make up for reduced premiums they received, much like Section 8 housing.

The hospital corporations would now be able to stop cost shifting from those who could pay for services either personally, via insurance or a combination of both to subsidized indigent care they were forced to provide. Now everyone would have healthcare insurance and the cost for treating the indigent would nearly disappear as their profits would increase due to being reimbursed for all care delivered.

Now as the reality is sinking in the insurance companies are seeing a significant reduction in the projected number of policies they thought they would be selling, the insured mix is very heavily weighted toward older / sicker enrollees and the subsidies are not coming in anytime soon because the "back end" of the ObamaCare website is not only not working, it has not even been built yet. It's anybody's guess as to who has coverage, if they have paid, if they actually qualified for a subsidy or were shifted to Medicaid and qualified. Can anyone say "Death Spiral".

The hospital corporations are seeing they are not going to receive payment in a timely manner due to the insurance problems listed above and are now finding out there are still going to be more than 10 million people who are still not going to have coverage they still must treat, so the indigent costs are not going away but may well go up due to the new scope of services required under ObamaCare.

November 2014 is getting closer every day. The Democrats don't have a hope in hell of retaking the House and may well lose the Senate. Have you noticed many of the architects of ObamaCare are retiring so as not to face a possible re-election defeat in 2014?

Just my humble opinion.

Rev BS

02-18-14, 03:07

November 2014 is getting closer every day. The Democrats don't have a hope in hell of retaking the House and may well lose the Senate. Have you noticed many of the architects of ObamaCare are retiring so as not to face a possible re-election defeat in 2014?

Just my humble opinion.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/rand-paul-gop-will-not-win-again-my-lifetime-presi/

Rand Paul think otherwise.

Member #4112

02-18-14, 12:02

Rev BS

02-18-14, 19:36

Gandolf50

02-18-14, 21:58

Yes, I did confuse the two different campaigns.

I would add that Americans have traditionally voted in favor of separating the powers between the presidency and congress. It's part of the American DNA.It helps to keep them honest. The problem is they need even more help then that!

BlueFalcon

02-21-14, 20:19

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371699/fcc-throws-towel-explosive-content-study-tim-cavanaugh

I mean I could have come up with a better acronym for this boondoggle..something like Censorship Interdiction Manipulation While Spying...or CIMWS...now THAT has a ring to it.

Wild Walleye

02-24-14, 16:44

Rev, either you did not read my post or the article you cited or you did not understand either.

I addressed the up coming 2014 mid-term elections. Paul was talking about the 2016 presidential elections.

I think Senator Paul is wrong, but we are way to far away to even be thinking about 2016 and need to concentrate on the 2014 mid-term election.

As I recall the Democrats were crowing about the "Death of Conservatism" after the 2008 elections only to take a similar beating in 2010. Too bad it was not a presidential year, Obama would have been gone, but alas it was not and we are still stuck with him.Too bad that the IRS and other groups had an additional 2 years to suppress the conservative vote. The truth, whether we want to admit it or not is that the 2012 US presidential election was corrupted and compromised. There were hundreds of groups (that 'coincidentally' didn't support the president) that were denied tax-free status and therefore effectively removed from the election cycle and their first amendment rights were stifled.

Could they have swayed 200 k votes in various districts across the country? Quite possibly. However, we'll never know and the truth will never come out. Just like all the other impeachable offenses over which this Marxist, want to-be dictator has presided. In theory, it isn't "if" the requisite number of votes could have been swayed. It is "if" this political targeting of political opponents took place (which it did). The IRS debacle (or Fast and Furious or Benghazi) would have been an impeachable offense for a white president (please think about both this statement and the facts before calling me a racist in some sadly, malformed knee-jerk diatribe). If it happened, then the responsible parties should have been held accountable. The high degree of visitation between the IRS and the POTUS (said to be about Obamacare when he didn't meet with Sebelius for three years) make it possible for only the most gullible, the mentally impaired and true believers to dismiss out of hand the likelihood that the POTUS was both aware of and complicit in the IRS targeting. Therefore, he should have had his day in court (Senate) which would have either changed the outcome of the presidential election or resulted in another corrupt POTUS being impeached.

Did you miss me?

Miami Bob

03-03-14, 21:56

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-durchslag/why-we-should-listen-to-m_b_2583484.html

Don B

03-04-14, 00:48

For those of you who were not around in 1938 we are now having a rerun.

Don B.

Miami Bob

03-04-14, 01:33

That the USA fell right back into the depression.

Miami Bob

03-04-14, 01:39

Nice to see you posting again, but please hit the other parts of the forum. There is a whole group of of formerly active members from AP, who discuss politics on the NY Times and WSJ forums.

Welcome back.

Wild Walleye

03-04-14, 11:00

Nice to see you posting again, but please hit the other parts of the forum. It's so good to be back at the Desta Lake Club...

There is a whole group of of formerly active members from AP, who discuss politics on the NY Times and WSJ.

Forums.

Welcome back.You're in luck, I can't read!

Check the times of my posts. Out of respect for you, I made sure not to make my initial, returning posts in this forum.

Big Boss Man

03-05-14, 00:10

Too bad that the IRS and other groups had an additional 2 years to suppress the conservative vote. The truth, whether we want to admit it or not is that the 2012 US presidential election was corrupted and compromised. There were hundreds of groups (that 'coincidentally' didn't support the president) that were denied tax-free status and therefore effectively removed from the election cycle and their first amendment rights were stifled.

Did you miss me?Yes but could not the groups just have paid the taxes and gotten their first amendment rights freed? Sometimes pragmatic men are more successful than ideologues.

On his deathbed, my dad who fought the IRS for 15 years told me, if he could do it all over again he would have just paid the fuckin taxes and moved on. Too much of his life was wasted fighting the IRS.

Welcome back.

Tiny12

03-05-14, 01:02

There's a bit of one sidedness here. The ACLU, of which I used to be a member, is just as pissed off as "conservative" 504 (c)(4)'s about having having to close shop or alternately disclose their membership and have it subjected to the wrath of those in the federal government who would persecute them. Rachel Durschslag is probably a left wing Democrat, not a conservative. And Don B's comment about 1938 most likely related to the annexation of Crimea by Russia, not how much money the federal government spends on trying to stimulate the economy, or sway elections, depending on how you look at it.

The IRS shouldn't be involved in politics or encharged with suppressing free speech.

Comparison of Crimea to Sudetenland, 1938: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-charles-g-cogan/crimea-sudetenland_b_4892893.html

Esten

03-06-14, 00:50

The IRS shouldn't be involved in politics or encharged with suppressing free speech.They're not. They are involved in ensuring applications for tax-exempt status are legitimate.

If you don't want to risk scrutiny, don't apply for tax-exempt status.

Tiny12

03-06-14, 02:51

They're not. They are involved in ensuring applications for tax-exempt status are legitimate.

If you don't want to risk scrutiny, don't apply for tax-exempt status.If Obama gets his way and makes the IRS implement proposed new rules, then that's exactly what will happen. The IRS will be encharged with determining whether an organization is involved in any "direct or indirect candidate-related political activity."

As you say if the organization wants to continue operating as usual it can start paying 35% tax to the federal government. Right, fat chance Esten. That's kind of like saying if you didn't want to get drafted and serve in Vietnam you could shoot yourself in the head. What will happen is the organizations will either cease to exercise their right to free speech and stop political activity. Or they will change their status and disclose the names of each and every one of their donors. The ACLU and Sierra Club among others are up in arms over this.

It's ridiculous the mental gymnastics and self-deceit that the Obama Administration will go to in order improve its edge in politics, especially given this is his last term. The man was a professor of constitutional law but thinks it's fine to disregard the first amendment.

Rev BS

03-06-14, 21:09

Yes but could not the groups just have paid the taxes and gotten their first amendment rights freed? Sometimes pragmatic men are more successful than ideologues.

On his deathbed, my dad who fought the IRS for 15 years told me, if he could do it all over again he would have just paid the fuckin taxes and moved on. Too much of his life was wasted fighting the IRS.

Welcome back."Parties tend to become pragmatic when they become powerless. It's time for us to get pragmatic. Please, let us come out of this conference not only resolved to stand for our principles, but let's come out of this conference resolved to win elections again. We don't get to govern if we don't win.".

In other words, stop bitching about unfairness of political tax exemptions, voting reforms, immigration strategies, press bias, etc. Conservative hardliners believe that one can arise from poverty by sheer hard work & determination, riight? And here, they are moaning & groaning like the welfare class that they so despise.

But with Trump, Issa, Palin, Judge Napolitano, Ryan, Cruz & O'Reilly, it looks more like the 3 Stooges & Company.

Big Boss Man

03-06-14, 23:42

"Parties tend to become pragmatic when they become powerless. It's time for us to get pragmatic. Please, let us come out of this conference not only resolved to stand for our principles, but let's come out of this conference resolved to win elections again. We don't get to govern if we don't win.".
I just finished reading the book "Double Down" which is about the 2012 Presidential campaign. With the caveat that these are liberal writers, one problem Romney faced is that he received all his campaign financing from a small group of people. So with the campaign laws written as they were, donors are limited to giving certain amounts within certain time periods. So in August when the 47% comment came out, Obama gambled and moved funds forward to hammer Romney in television ads when Romney could not fight back due to lack of funds. Romney eventually had to cut a check for $20 million from his own stash to keep his campaign going. Obama had a better grassroots fund raising campaign so he did not have a donor problem or at least he had more slack. So the other work around from the IRS problem was just to give directly to the Romney campaign. In truth, the Tea Party did not like Romney all that much which is why they did not want to give up control of the money.

In Romney's version of why he lost, he says that Obama gave all his special interest groups gifts. In my cynical mind, the special interest groups then re-gifted some of their haul back to Obama's campaign which allowed Obama to paint Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat which allowed him to win the final 4% which led to victory.

Big Boss Man

03-06-14, 23:47

If Obama gets his way and makes the IRS implement proposed new rules, then that's exactly what will happen. The IRS will be encharged with determining whether an organization is involved in any "direct or indirect candidate-related political activity."
So Issa and Boehner need to come up with an actual reform. Lerner is going to continue to cite the Fifth Amendment because she is in violation of the Hatch Act.

Esten

03-08-14, 13:09

I watched the IRS hearing this week, what struck me most was the appalling conduct of the chairman, Darrell Issa.

He controlled the hearing the entire time, and when Lerner kept taking the 5th in response to his questions and slideshows, he made a short statement and quickly adjourned the meeting. He said "I have no expectation that Miss Lerner will cooperate with this committee, and therefore we stand adjourned." and banged the gavel to adjourn. When he said " this committee" he really meant "me". He didn't ask if anyone else had questions. When Elijah Cummings said he had a question, Issa initially completely ignored him. He then tried to dissuade Cummings, encouraged Lerner to leave, and then finally asked that Cummings microphone be cut off. Un-be-lievable !

This is not the first time Issa has blatantly abused his position. Last year, he selectively released documents and withheld specific documents that showed IRS staffers were not politically motivated. There has been speculation that Lerner was politically motivated, but no evidence. OTOH, Issa's blatant partisan conduct is on display for all to see. This guy needs to be fired, charged for abusing his position, and tried in court.

Member #4112

03-08-14, 14:02

Esten, can you say Henry Waxman?

Where were your "outrage" and "monkey court" condemnations when Waxman gaveled down Issa a few years ago? Waxman's behavior was exponentially more egregious than Issa's treatment of the blowhard Cummings.

Liberal / Progressive double standard again!

I am sure the Democrats want to start this side show to distract the public from the disaster of ObamaCare and Obama's failed foreign policy.

I noticed Obama has now "extended" the grace period for nonconforming healthcare polices for another 2 years in hopes of forestalling another wave of cancellations for business employer's policies which will occur just before the 2014 mid-terms. I suspect the results will be the same as the last time Obama waved his "magic wand" over the personal policy cancellations in 2013, NOTHING! The several states insurance commissioners refused to acknowledge the reprieve as it contradicted the law as written.

Have you noticed how many of the architects of ObamaCare have "retired" rather than face defeat at the polls?

2014 is coming and the Democrats are scared, very scared.

Punter 127

03-08-14, 15:24

Nancy Pelosi turned out the lights and killed the microphones in 2008

House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.[snip]

“This is the people’s House,” Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”[snip]

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers. [snip]
"Un-be-lievable!" Really?

How quick they forget, but turnabout seems like fair play to me.

Rc Collins

03-08-14, 17:53

This is exactly why very little gets done by all the jokers in government. What about when you did this or what about when you did that? The only defense any side needs to make is to remind the other side about their past infraction and the matter is then it closed because no one will ever be wrong as the sides are then even. These elected slickers have used the "tip for tat" excuse so much the public, as we can see here is now readily accepting it as a defense when in effect it is clearly not, no matter what side you're on.

Tit for tat is one of the set up argument for many divorces, would be nice to divorce all these clowns with their endless excuses and no action. Would be even nicer, no smarter if Joe public would stop accepting and using it as a defense. Remember every time either side uses it, its more than likely a cop out of something they did wrong and they're using past bad behavior / action to excuse the current one. Bet I get no love for this post from either side.

Tiny12

03-08-14, 18:01

I watched the IRS hearing this week, what struck me most was the appalling conduct of the chairman, Darrell Issa.I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.

WorldTravel69

03-10-14, 03:46

Come on Tiny, Issa is a Fuck up. You are smarter than what he is believing in, his crazy rantings?

I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.

Tiny12

03-10-14, 13:16

I really don't know much about him WT69. I just read his write up on Wikipedia and agree with some of his positions and disagree with others. He does appear to have a good background in business, and should know how to grow the economy better than most in Congress. You'll note that I agreed with Esten's post about Issa shutting down Cummings. This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.

Esten

03-11-14, 01:08

This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.

Esten

03-11-14, 01:49

No surprise the right wingers here attempt to justify Darrell Issa's reprehensible conduct. But it turns out, their justifications are weak and phony. I guess they went on Google and this is all they could find.

Republicans stayed behind after Pelosi adjourned the House without allowing a vote on offshore drilling. It was a publicity stunt. There is no evidence Pelosi herself shut off the lights briefly. It's true Pelosi refused to allow a vote, but this is a separate issue. The controlling parties in the House and Senate determine what gets voted on, right or wrong this is a longstanding precedent and priviledge afforded to the party in power in each chamber. It's a separate issue.

The example with Waxman was in fact on the House Oversight Committee. But it was Issa interrupting and trying to derail Waxman while he was in the middle of questioning someone. Did Cummings do that to Issa? Nope. Cummings patiently waited his turn in silence, only to have Issa bang the gavel and adjourn without giving Cummings a chance.

So neither of these examples are comparable to what happened in last week's hearing. But it's the type of superficial, deceptive crud that you can expect an ODS sufferer to fling, and an LIV to believe.

Tiny12

03-11-14, 03:01

Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Esten, After the 2012 elections were over and after the IRS received the scrutiny it deserved for selectively stonewalling applications for 501(c)(4) status, they started timely approving tea party applications. This is probably not an issue going forward if IRS regulations and policies remain as they are now. I'm not upset about the current application process. I am upset about new regulations proposed by the Treasury department, that would apply to all 501(c)(4)'s.

Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.

You're mistaken. A section 527 organization (for example, a political action committee or a political party) is tax exempt. There are no limits on contributions to tax exempt 527's, no restrictions on who may contribute, and no spending limits. However, section 527 organizations must be primarily political, and they must disclose their donors. The issues with the IRS have nothing to do with 527's. A 527 can and must spend its money on politics, and it will remain tax exempt.

The issue with the IRS is with 501(c)(4)'s, organizations which are set up to promote activities "that promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community." So what represents "the common good and general welfare?" Well, we'd both agree that Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) qualifies. Others would disagree. Maybe a majority of Americans would disagree. Should they have the right to shut down Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4)? Should Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) be prohibited from becoming involved with political issues? Should the Planned Parenthood 501(c)(4) be forced to disclose its members? Having been hassled by a group of aggressive protesters who thought I was an "abortionist" when I entered the local PP to get tested for VD and make a contribution, I've got particularly strong feelings about that one. Anyway, my answer to all these questions would be HELL NO!

You would probably agree with the aims of Obama's 501(c)(4), Organizing for Action (OFA) and believe it promotes social welfare. It promotes gun control and immigration reform, among other things. I on the other hand am a director of and contributor to a 501(c)(4) organization that promotes reduction of wasteful government spending, reduction of government deficits, and an efficient and pro-growth tax system. As long as those organizations are promoting policies that their members believe primarily promote general welfare, politicians and the IRS have no business shutting them down, forcing them to disclose the names of their donors, or forcing them not to be involved with political issues.

The Treasury Department has indicated that it plans to place new limits on "any or all activities[by501(c)(4)'s] that do not further social welfare." Furthermore, they propose that social welfare does not include "any public communication within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates in that election or, in the case of a general election, refers to one or more political parties represented in that election." Voter registration drives and preparation of voter guides are out the window, as is "hosting or conducting an event within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election at which one or more candidates appear."

Anyway, if you've got an organization that's primarily political, it qualifies for section 527 and it will be tax exempt. If it's entirely apolitical, it qualifies as a 501(c)(3) organization. Then it's not only tax exempt, but contributions from donors qualify as tax deductions. But what if it's a hybrid, promoting what its contributers believe is a social good while somehow being involved in the political process? What if its members, be they involved with Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, or a tea party organization, fear persecution from loonies, politicians or bureaucrats? Then it's a 501(c)(4). These have their place. You probably don't understand this issue. Or alternately you have the same attitude towards free speech as Christina Kirchner, Richard Nixon and Vladimir Putin --it's fine as long as it's something you agree with. I'm not being silly.

Esten

03-12-14, 01:59

Tiny, I was referring to groups that voluntarily applied for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. You correctly point out that 527's are tax-exempt. My statement was over broad because I meant a group is not eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status if it is primarily political.

This is what your whole issue is about, right - 501 (c)(4) groups? So what's the problem? You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?

I can assure you that freedom of speech is just as important on the left as the right. Democrats are not about suppressing free speech. The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.

WorldTravel69

03-12-14, 02:22

How to Buy America.

All you need is money.

The Koch Brothers provide the Money. Pronounced COKE. Just like http://boehner.house.gov/..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMvO7dx4GeU

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/10/koch-brothers-targeted-in-new-senate-ad/

https://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140218/koch-brothers-backed-group-pulls-political-ads-after-alaska-refinery-shutdown

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/10/sen-begich-launches-ad-against-koch-brothers/

Punter 127

03-13-14, 17:39

Esten

03-14-14, 00:14

Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure
Oh my goodness, that's terrible.

Rc Collins

03-16-14, 14:21

This is a brilliantly done fair and balance assessment by Neil Cavuto. An admitted conservative but at times he has been known to call out his own party. His message here is spot on for anyone who cares about fairness in any form.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3340745208001/cavuto-conservatives-need-to-be-consistent-on-spending/?intcmp=HPBucket

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html

Esten

03-18-14, 00:25

Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits.

Punter 127

03-18-14, 04:33

Surely you knew this was coming.

Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits."Oh my goodness, that's terrible."

Tiny12

03-18-14, 22:35

You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?Esten, I thought I was clear on that point but maybe not. At this point, since tea party groups brought IRS abuses to light, the application process is not an issue. The issue is new regulations proposed by the Department of the Treasury/IRS in November that would apply to all groups, not just ones that are seeking approval to start up.

The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.No, the reason is that Democrats are cohesive on a range of issues. They brainwash themselves to believe as their party does, or they benefit from their party's largess. As such, they donate more to their party and their politicians than do others. Democrats have a big lead in amounts donated to individual campaigns, their national party, and congressional campaign committees.

Many Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Greens believe differently from others in their party on particular issues. The issue is what's important to them, not the party. To some taxes and spending are important. To others the environment. To others particular social issues. The particular concern of the Democrat Party are Tea Party types, because reducing the size of federal government, promoting an efficient, pro-growth tax system, and promoting greater opportunity through an education system for the benefit of the students instead of the teachers unions runs counter to the interests of their party. If a Tea Party group tries to promote its agenda through the political process, it's bad for Democrats.

About anonymity -- I was eating lunch today with a like minded Libertarian who was upset that his wife put her name on a petition at a tea party event in Arizona. Why? Because he's afraid of being persecuted. This is not unwarranted. In my lifetime, there's never been an instance where the executive branch of government went after its opponents like now. Yes, Richard Nixon tried to do something similar, but the IRS wouldn't go along. Obama's opponents have gotten persecuted. Ask Frank Van Der Sloot and others that federal agencies went after because they donated to the Romney campaign. Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. Or the 5 donors to a conservative political organization that were audited by the IRS for not reporting their contributions in excess of $14,000 as gifts on their federal tax returns. By the way, there is no chance in hell the IRS would have done that to a Democrat affiliated organization. I believe the organization was a 501(c)(4) and the IRS got the anonymous donors' names through an audit of the group. This is why people want to be anonymous.

Tiny12

03-18-14, 22:46

Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and if so many people hadn't been hurt by ObamaCare.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/031214-693001-latest-obama-mandate-exemption-change-guarantees-obamacare-failure.htm

It's worse than that Punter. Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 30 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2022. Why did we do this, instead of something that would have cut costs, improved the system, and made it where millions of people wouldn't still be relying on emergency room visits for basic health care?

Esten

03-19-14, 00:55

Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".

Her group has a track record of targetting and intimidating Democrat voters, all in the name of preventing "voter fraud", which has been all but dismissed as mythical. They send letters to minority voters stating "Your right to vote has been challenged by a qualified electorate". With 501(c)(4) status, big-monied interests (like the Koch brothers, who she knows) could anonymously funnel millions to groups like hers to expand their voter intimidation efforts across the country. And she applies to the IRS for tax-exempt status when her group is CLEARLY all about influencing elections?

The new regs are a step in the right direction to deal with the abuse and politicization of 501(c)(4)s.

Tiny12

03-19-14, 01:27

Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".Esten, IF what you say is true, so what? The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. IF what you say is true, complete, and representative, and I have my doubts about that, then yes, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission should put the organization out of existence. You start involving the IRS in politics and you're going down a dangerous path. And this is a prime example, when they start auditing issues totally unrelated to her group, in order to harass her.

Esten

03-20-14, 00:08

The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. If the multiple agency audits / questions were indeed coordinated harassment, those responsible should be held accountable and punished.

But forgive me, such coordination seems very far-fetched. And the argument that some people "didn't like her" isn't evidence. This is just more of the same flimsy victimization mindset that you applied to the phony IRS scandal. Out of hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party groups, why was it only her group that got so much attention? Did you even bother to look into the specifics of why these agencies were involved?

Tiny12

03-20-14, 11:11

Esten, While I'm not very knowledgeable about Obamacare, except to know it doesn't fix anything, or gun control, I do know enough about income taxes and tax exempt organizations to argue with you. And some of the positions you take aren't reasonable. Bush was responsible for the tax increases on January 1,2013. The maximum marginal tax on individuals' income is 39.6%. And now the hold up of approvals of tea party organizations by the IRS was a phony scandal. You're intelligent and a HIV, so all I can figure out is you're twisting facts in your mind to come up with explanations that fit your world view. From reading your posts, there isn't a single position of the Democrat Party platform you disagree with. You must believe everything you see on MSNBC. Come on, think for yourself. Watch Stossel once in a while.

BTW, with respect to your references to the massive amounts of money being sloshed through the political system by Tea Party 501 (c)(4)'s and the Koch brothers, please realize they're a drop in the bucket compared to the $4.4 billion unions spent from 2005 to 2011. The Democrat Party and its candidates have raised a lot more money recently than Republicans, let alone Libertarians and other third parties: https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2014

Member #4112

03-20-14, 11:58

Esten, while you complain about the Tea Party 501's can you say George Soros or MoveOn. Org? What the Tea Party has plowed into ads is not a drop in the bucket compared to just these two much less all the other liberal organizations or the labor movement as pointed out by Tiny.

If the IRS scandal is phony, why is Lerner taking the Fifth against SELF INCRIMINATION if no misdeeds were committed?

Typical Liberal/Progressive double standard again.

Esten

03-24-14, 01:58

WorldTravel69

03-24-14, 03:11

Correction:

We are spending Billions of dollars to support what started under Bush.

I had to say Bush, because some of you would have said it started under Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/vice-shane-smith-scariest-story-power-cnn-article-1.1719527

The Contractors are destroying good products to sell to the Afghans, which is then resold to the Taliban. Then the contractors order more new products.

Our government is the problem! No one in the government is checking what is going on.

Not just the Democrats, but the also the Republicans!

Jackson

03-24-14, 09:55

We are spending Billions of dollars to support what Bush started.President Bush started the attack on the World Trade Center?

That's news to me.

I thought it was Al Queda that attacked our country on 9/11 and "started" everything.

Jax.

Tiny12

03-24-14, 16:52

If the multiple agency audits / questions were indeed coordinated harassment, those responsible should be held accountable and punished.

But forgive me, such coordination seems very far-fetched. And the argument that some people "didn't like her" isn't evidence. This is just more of the same flimsy victimization mindset that you applied to the phony IRS scandal. Out of hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party groups, why was it only her group that got so much attention? Did you even bother to look into the specifics of why these agencies were involved?It's got to be far fetched, because the Obama administration and people in the federal government would never victimize anyone they view as an enemy. Here's her testimony:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=589797007761126

Member #4112

03-24-14, 18:03

Doppel, Democrats aren't seeking any different or preferential treatment when it comes to disclosure requirements for political donations.

And Lois Lerner, like others in the Obama administration, clearly understands that Darrell Issa is a joke. He has made a mockery of the House Oversight Committee, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that he is a partisan hack who operates based on political strategy. The man is now desperate, having failed to find even a smidgen of political motivation after interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing thousands of emails and other documents. Why would Lerner play into his Monkey Court? Issa is not looking for the truth, he is looking for any way to selectively report or twist the facts, to enable the right wing media to keep rallying their followers about how they are all "victims".Esten, you still fail to answer the question, why take the 5th if no misdeeds were committed. Could it be there were?

If you call Issa's committee a "monkey court" what would you call the first two years of Obama's reign with both the house and senate in democrat hands?

How about that ObamaCare big guy? The dem's are running away from Obama and his healthcare debacle as fast as they can!

Big Boss Man

03-24-14, 23:08

Esten, you still fail to answer the question, why take the 5th if no misdeeds were committed. Could it be there were?

If you call Issa's committee a "monkey court" what would you call the first two years of Obama's reign with both the house and senate in democrat hands?

How about that ObamaCare big guy? The dem's are running away from Obama and his healthcare debacle as fast as they can!Just to answer the first question, you also take the fifth when there is ambiguity about whether things might escalate. To quote Wikipedia:"The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." With the divided government we own, things can get out of hand rather quickly these days. (the Clinton impeachment as an example?) Lerner probably has a decent lawyer advising her.

Esten

03-25-14, 01:44

I already answered your question Doppel, go back and read my response. Lerner is too smart to play into the hands of a partisan slimeball like Darrell Issa. The guy should be fired, charged and tried in court. Meanwhile restore some respect to the HOC and replace Issa with someone fair and balanced, and I'm sure Lerner will be much more likely to testify.

Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted under the same administration that saved the country from a near-depression resulting from laissez-faire free-market ideology. The ACA is a very good step forward to broadening access to healthcare and stopping some of the healthcare insurance abuses that other developed countries stopped a long-time ago. Aside from some important bumps that now are mostly resolved, the law is being implemented fairly well for something so big.

You must have loved watching other Americans getting denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, or forced into bankruptcy paying their medical bills. Why don't you tell us all how much you enjoyed that?

Esten

03-25-14, 02:17

Member #4112

03-25-14, 11:27

Hey Tiny, Take a look at this article about your alleged IRS victim, Catherine Engelbrecht. She is the founder of at least two Tea Party groups, one of which is the subject of the article below from the Houston Chronicle. Along with the previously reported voter intimidation tactics, it looks like Snow White actually has a record of activism and pushing the envelope. Did you bother yet to look up the reasons behind her involvement with the FBI, ATF and OSHA? Or are you afraid you might learn something that could call into question your view that she is a victim.

Judge rules tea party group a PAC, not a nonprofit
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-rules-tea-party-group-a-PAC-not-a-nonprofit-3442532.phpEsten, first of all the Houston Chronicle is one of the if not the most liberal papers in the state. I know since I subscribe as it is the only paper in Houston. Second Travis County is the county in which the state capital resides and is a liberal bastion and has been for years. Strange they had to go to Austin to find a judge for this case? Take a look at the rate Austin Judges are overturned by the State Supreme Court. Liberals predominately file their suits in Austin due to liberal judges on the bench in that county, while they often win at that level they are constantly overturned on appeal.

That is always the problem with liberals, it's Ok to be an activist and pump money into the election process if you are on the left, but activism becomes a dirty word when it comes to the right doing the same.

There is something very wrong when enforcement branches of the federal government begin targeting political speech. Did you forget that Lerner is the person who revealed the fact the IRS was improperly targeting conservative groups?

Punter 127

03-25-14, 15:26

Just to answer the first question, you also take the fifth when there is ambiguity about whether things might escalate. To quote Wikipedia:"The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." With the divided government we own, things can get out of hand rather quickly these days. (the Clinton impeachment as an example?) Lerner probably has a decent lawyer advising her.I don't think anyone is questioning her right to take the fifth. I see an entirely different question here.

Does an employee have the right to refuse to answer questions from their employer concerning the performance of their duties? The answer is of course yes, but the employer has the right and in this case some would argue the responsibility to discipline said employee. Lois Lerner is a federal employee and Darrell Issa like him or not has legal authority to ask questions, and he represents her employer which is the American people.

If Lois Lerner refuses to answer question which again is her right under the Constitution she should be discharged and barred from any government position. This should apply to all government employees. We simply can not allow rogue employees or agencies. To try and defend or justify either Lois Lerner or Darrell Issa because of their political affiliation which is what seems to be happening here is completely absurd!

I also think we should simplify our tax system and do away with the IRS so it can't be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Between the IRS and NSA the federal government has entirely to much power and must be reined in.

IMHO you use the word "decent" far to loosely, in most cases I would consider "decent lawyer" an oxymoron.

Tiny12

03-25-14, 18:06

Dear Esten,

Some of the Jews that Hitler gassed cheated on their taxes. That's an exaggerated analogy, because the repercussions Engelbrecht suffered at the hands of the government pale by the side of what happens to, say, people who get busted for drugs three times and spend the rest of their lives in jail. Most likely, you have some politically-minded big wigs like Lois Lerner in government issuing orders. But fortunately many bureaucrats don't let their prejudices carry over to their jobs, or aren't politically minded. In investigating Engelbrecht's personal finances and her business, the field agents did their jobs, came up with nothing, and after considerable time and expense she's in the clear. The same thing happened with Tea Party 501 (c)(4)'s. The best that Lerner et al could do was to delay the approvals of the organizations for months or years. Eventually their applications were approved. I've been in business longer than Engelbrecht. Over the course of more than two decades I've been hit with three IRS audits, one of which was conducted by mail, and one OSHA investigation. She gets 15 visits from federal agencies right after she became politically involved when she had none before. That's quite a coincidence. As to documenting her claims, it is indeed difficult because the IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI don't release information about investigations. Yep, guess you've got me there.

As to whether she's "Snow White", what difference does it make? Back when it was nonpartisan, I was a member of the ACLU, which has defended Nazi's. Based on your recent posts on Engelbrecht, one would think you on the other hand believe in the "fuck her over good if I don't like her" philosophy.

Doppelganger is right about Travis County judges, and I'd extend that to Travis County prosecutors and Travis County grand juries. If she's being rolled over, there's a good chance that will be overturned. BUT, that's how things like this should be resolved, the way they are now in Texas. The Federal Election Commission and the courts should be the arbitrators, not the IRS. Politicizing the IRS is a bad idea.

With respect to her activities in Texas, it's interesting that the FBI is going after her political organizations, but not the group Houston Votes. You read the press coverage and this actually looks like a case of Engelbrecht's organization trying to counter Houston Votes, which was up to voter fraud on a significant scale. How many groups like Houston Votes or Moveon. Org are being targeted by the FBI or the IRS? Probably not any higher percentage than nominally nonpolitical organizations like the Sierra Club, NORML, ACLU, etc. But there are those in power who have decided to go after people and groups the Democrat Party views as opponents, as clearly evidenced by what happened under Lerner.

While I don't know whether Engelbrecht was up to no good (the New Yorker article about her would indicate she was in certain places), I do know you've got a pollyanna's view of voter fraud. My father's cousin stuffed ballot boxes in South Texas for Lyndon Baines Johnson. Voter fraud happens, more than you think.

Esten

03-26-14, 00:35

Let's review the facts:

(1) There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Lois Lerner.
(2) There is no evidence of coordinated activity by federal agencies against Catherine Engelbrecht.
(3) There is evidence of valid reasons for the activities of said federal agencies.
(4) There is evidence of voter intimidation by Catherine Engelbrecht's Tea Party group.
(5) There is evidence of illegal political activity by Catherine Engelbrecht's Tea Party group.

Despite the facts, the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers choose to ignore them, so they can cling to their conspiracy theories that they are victims. Who knew, that a fundamental premise of being a self-described "Patriot" is that one is also a "Victim" ? Fascinating.

There's nothing wrong with being politically active and wanting to stop voter fraud (as small as it is). It's how it's done. Intimidation and breaking the law aren't good ways to go about it. Now, it is claimed that the Texas judge who found Engelbrecht's Tea Party group guilty of illegal activity was biased. And this would be proven by a successful appeal by her group, King Street Patriots. This one should be easy. Let's see who can post a credible link proving that the ruling of the Texas judge against her Tea Party group was appealed and overturned.

Tiny12

03-26-14, 01:06

Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted under the same administration that saved the country from a near-depression resulting from laissez-faire free-market ideology. Yep, the "near depression" was entirely the fault of George Bush and his laissez-faire free-market ideology. Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and incompetent bank regulators had nothing to do with it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0.

Neither did Barney Frank and a myriad of Congressmen from both parties who played games with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and forced banks to loan to customers who weren't creditworthy to buy houses they couldn't afford.

But fortunately Barack Hussein Obama was there to save us. Thank you Almighty! By racking up trillion dollar deficits and implementing a $831 billion stimulus that handed out lots of pork but did nothing to create jobs, he saved us from ruin and destitution. And five years into the recovery, the percentage of Americans who are employed is lower than it was in the depths of the recession: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

By the way, the Tea Party is all about taxes and spending. Despite what Catherine Engelbrecht says, it has nothing to with voter fraud. Here's how it originated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcvSjKCU_Zo.

And about items 1 through 3 in your last post being "facts." That's mighty impressive, I wish I could do that too. With that level of self delusion I might be able to think I've got a 10" penis, which would do wonders for my self image. (There's a reason they call me Tiny.)

Esten

03-27-14, 00:11

And about items 1 through 3 in your last post being "facts." That's mighty impressive, I wish I could do that too. With that level of self delusion Hey Tiny, here's an idea. Why don't you do some research, and post some evidence to refute my facts?

FYI, conspiracy theories are not facts.

Member #4112

03-27-14, 11:20

Hey Tiny, here's an idea. Why don't you do some research, and post some evidence to refute my facts?

FYI, conspiracy theories are not facts.Esten, I could say the same regarding your "facts", as for some reason you believe your opinions are "facts".

So why is the IRS stonewalling Issa's committee? How long would it take to produce Learner's emails. No one is buying the "years" statement from the commissioner. All the emails have been subpoenaed, there is no need for the IRS to "redact" anything and the data dump should not take more than a few key strokes. Everyone who has email accounts knows this.

Here is a little tid bit for you which could be applied to your list of items 1 - 3, have you ever heard the saying:

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It might just be a duck.

TejanoLibre

03-27-14, 11:46

Can you fix the Country in 8 Years?

NO FUCKING WAY!

Was it Clinton's fault that Bush had to fix his mistakes?

Was it the other way?

It takes more than 8 years and a lot of sweat to change the world Boys!

Give it Time!

Let's kill them ALL and allow GOD to sort them out!

Gig Em Aggies!

TL for God and President!

Esten

03-27-14, 22:44

Doppel, All my statements are factual, as they are all supported by the body of information reported in the media. On the contrary, you have presented no evidence of collusion or intentional political motivation; so they remain conspiracy theories. You really should learn the difference. BTW, I'm still waiting for your link showing the ruling of the Texas judge on illegal Tea Party group activities was appealed and overturned.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It might just be a duck.Maybe someone is painting a picture of a duck, and you've been fooled into believing it's a real duck.

Punter 127

03-28-14, 00:35

Facts matterHere's some facts for you,

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium!

And those are facts, Jack!

Tiny12

03-28-14, 01:53

Here's some facts for you,

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium!Punter, Esten notes that "Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act," which will provide health insurance to Americans. Except for the 30 million that still won't have it in 2022, according to the CBO. Therefore I am highly skeptical of your claims. Let's review the facts.

(1) There is no evidence that you can't keep your Doctor.

(2) There is no evidence that you can't keep your policy.

(3) There is no evidence that you did not get a $2500 reduction in your health care premium.

Please note that anything you say will not be accepted as evidence. You might be lying. Therefore you must produce evidence supported by the body of information reported in the media in order for the evidence to be accepted. If your physician and insurance company are under ethical or legal restrictions that prohibit them from disclosing to the press that you are no longer a client, then you've got a problem. Furthermore, and this is important, you must establish that your doctor and your insurance company were involved in COORDINATED ACTIVITY before we will accept that either dropped you.

Statistical evidence absolutely will not be accepted. If your insurance company dropped 90% of its customers in your state, that's not evidence. So that you may better understand this point, you may compare it to what a New York Times blogger and the House Ways and Means Committee staff produced for the number of approvals granted by the IRS for Tea Party versus Progressive groups. That's not valid. Numbers just confuse me.

Finally, hypothetically, what if a Mr. Clois Clerner, a high level bureaucrat at Health & Human Services, wrote that "the Punter matter is very dangerous," because it could be used to reinforce a court ruling on Obamacare that the Administration believes helped Republicans? Nope, that doesn't wash. Facts and evidence are the exclusive domain of those on the left. Everything else is a duck painting.

WorldTravel69

03-28-14, 04:57

Most of you republicans do not care about the Facts.

Christiebridgegate.

He hired his own investigators.

Not one of his appointees has been interviewed.

Jackson.

One Big Cover Up.

Lets hear your Cover up reasons?

Jackson

03-28-14, 12:52

Everything else is a duck painting.A duck painting?

Member #4112

03-28-14, 13:09

A duck painting?Jackson, see my post regarding if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it might be a duck post and Esten's comment.

Esten's asserts I and all conservatives are deluded conspiracy nuts and when using the above yard stick we are only looking at a photo of a duck, sort of misses the point but that's Esten.

My response to Esten and his points in his earlier post is: PROVE YOUR 'FACTS' THAT NONE OF THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED.

You night note this is using the Left's favorite ploy of asking you to prove a negative.

Should be entertaining to watch Esten twist in the wind on this one.

Remember Learner is the one who leaked the fact the IRS was improperly targeting conservative groups.

Tres3

03-28-14, 13:36

J

Should be entertaining to watch Esten twist in the wind on this one.The best way to watch Esten twist in the wind, is to ignore him and his posts. Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.

Tres3

Jackson

03-28-14, 14:23

The best way to watch Esten twist in the wind, is to ignore him and his posts. Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.

Tres3Au contraire.

Esten provides us with ongoing examples of the kind of arguments concocted by the left to manipulate the LIV.

In tandem, WT69 provides us with ongoing examples of the results of those efforts.

Thanks,

Jax.

Punter 127

03-28-14, 22:24

CA State Sen. Leland Yee Indicted for Arms Trafficking After Supporting Assault Weapons Ban

Most of you republicans do not care about the Facts."On March 26th gun control proponent and California state senator Leland Yee (D) was indicted on charges of arms trafficking and public corruption.".

"The Associated Press reports that Yee was to receive campaign donations in exchange for various favors, including acquiring arms from a Muslim rebel group. The people with whom the deals were made turned out to be undercover FBI agents.".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/CA-State-Senator-Who-Supported-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Indicted-On-Arms-Trafficking

We hear a lot of anti-gun BS, and whining about Chris Christie and a traffic jam from WT69, but not one word from him about a gun trafficking Democrat right under his nose. Go figure.

Esten

03-29-14, 02:55

Here's some facts for you,

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium!

And those are facts, Jack!Glad to see you posting some facts. It's refreshing from all the conspiracy nonsense. It's unfortunate you were in the 5% that couldn't keep your policy, but while the ACA was a factor, maybe you should also consider how much this was your insurance company's decision. About 95% of insured Americans kept their policies. The $2500 reduction was only for a family of four. And it was only "up to" a $2500 reduction, although Obama did not consistently use this qualifier, or his qualifiers on keeping your plan. He oversimplified and overpromised on many occasions, that's a fact and a valid criticism. Of course, this is the consistent right wing myopic focus only on anything negative. Breitbart and Fox News probably didn't run any positive ACA stories, so maybe I'll post one.

Punter 127

03-29-14, 12:49

“Oh my goodness, that's terrible”... Those Evil Insurance Companies!

Glad to see you posting some facts. It's refreshing from all the conspiracy nonsense. It's unfortunate you were in the 5% that couldn't keep your policy, but while the ACA was a factor, maybe you should also consider how much this was your insurance company's decision. About 95% of insured Americans kept their policies. The $2500 reduction was only for a family of four. And it was only "up to" a $2500 reduction, although Obama did not consistently use this qualifier, or his qualifiers on keeping your plan. He oversimplified and overpromised on many occasions, that's a fact and a valid criticism. Of course, this is the consistent right wing myopic focus only on anything negative. Breitbart and Fox News probably didn't run any positive ACA stories, so maybe I'll post one.”There is no evidence” that the insurance companies are to blame, they followed the law as written. Something Obama should try.

BadMan said it best when he said:

And by the way, fuckk Obama care. Its worthless beyond belief. It was written by the same insurance companies it was supposed to rein in.[snip] And he was also right when he said:

I understand some people like the illusion of socialized and or affordable healthcare but obamacare isn't that. Its a farce.

All in all, the numbers don't lie.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/529f386569bedd1b34e32de8-538/obama-approval-rating.jpg With you it's always somebody else's fault either you're trying to be deceptive or Tres3 had it right when he said:

Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.[snip] Which is it?

Why don't you just admit ObamaCare is a complete cluster fuck, it's reminiscent of Prohibition. The American people are very forgive to those who admit mistakes and ask for forgiveness, but blatant liars pay a price sooner or later. Continue to live the ObamaCare lie and the Democrat party will be crucified, not just in the up coming election but for years to come as more and more people get hurt by ObamaCare!

Esten

03-31-14, 00:52

”There is no evidence” that the insurance companies are to blame, they followed the law as written. Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact. These plans didn't automatically become financially unsustainable, because many of them are still being offered. The insurance companies made choices to drop plans, like they did every single year before the ACA became law, especially in the individual insurance market. The ACA did force non-grandfathered plans that didn't meet the ACA minimum requirements to be cancelled. For grandfathered plans, it was the insurance company's decision.

Esten

03-31-14, 01:07

This guy actually wrote Obama, and they put his letter on the whitehouse website. You've got to think that every Republican who has benefitted from the new law, knows what a lie all the right wing emotional attacks are.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/29/1288174/--Staunch-Republican-ObamaCare-Works

Good afternoon,

I am a staunch Republican, a self-proclaimed Fox News addict, and I didn't vote for the President. And I'm here to tell you that Obamacare works. I'm living proof.

I'm a chemotherapy patient, and was previously paying $428 a month for my health coverage. I was not thrilled when it was cancelled.

Then I submitted an application at HealthCare.gov. I looked at my options. And I signed up for a plan for $62 a month.

It's the best health care I have ever had.

So right now, here's what I want to tell anyone who still needs health insurance, or knows someone who does:

Sign up. Follow the instructions on the website. Apply, and look at your options. You still have time, and take it from me: This is something you want to do.

I wrote a letter to President Obama this past February to tell him about my experience with the Health Insurance Marketplace. I hoped he'd read it, and he did.

I may not be a supporter of the President. But now, I get mad when I see Obamacare dragged through the mud on television.

And even though I regularly tune in to conservative pundits, I'd like to tell them they're getting it wrong. Obamacare works.

So one more time: If you still need health insurance, you have just three days to get it. Do what I did. Go to HealthCare.gov, submit an application, and pick a plan that works for you.

It just might change your life.

Mark D. Bearden, Ph.D.
Monroe, North Carolina

Punter 127

03-31-14, 09:27

Member #4112

03-31-14, 15:02

Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact. These plans didn't automatically become financially unsustainable, because many of them are still being offered. The insurance companies made choices to drop plans, like they did every single year before the ACA became law, especially in the individual insurance market. The ACA did force non-grandfathered plans that didn't meet the ACA minimum requirements to be cancelled. For grandfathered plans, it was the insurance company's decision.You are misinformed Esten, ObamaCare as written and passed by the Democrats and signed by Obama provides specific deadline dates without "grandfather" clauses. If you can find one in the bill please place it here for we poor deluded, conspiracy driven conservatives to see in black and white. I'm not talking about all the waivers Obama handed out to his friends. Good luck with that.

What happened was Obama waved his magic wand back in 2013 after the uproar over individual policy cancelations due to non-conformance with Obamacare mandates and again this year regarding the coming cancelations of company policies in September, October and November for non-conforming plans. If you would take the time to check the several states insurance commissioners declined to follow Obama's magic wand proposal but followed the law as written. I suspect the same thing will occur again this year.

Obama's magic wand trick was a publicity stunt in an attempt to shift the blame from Obama, the Democrats and ObamaCare to the states insurance commissioners. "See we told them it was ok to issue the policies but those mean old insurance commissioners are to blame if your policy is canceled not us". The policies were canceled and not reissued or "grandfathered" as there is no provision in the written law as passed to facilitate this. The commissioners followed the law as enacted.

Jackson

03-31-14, 18:21

Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact.This "headline" from Esten's comment is what the LIV will read.

It's irrelevant to Esten that his headline is inaccurate.

The only thing important to Esten is that he got his headline published, because he knows that there are some LIVs browsing even this lonely thread, and that those LIV's will glance at his headline and then move on to other threads about pussy while subconsciously thinking "See, just like I heard before, it's the insurance companies fault and those rascally conservatives are lying again."

Mission accomplished.

Jax.

Tres3

03-31-14, 19:19

Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.

Dccpa

03-31-14, 21:31

Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.So, true. And that poor, dumb, PHD sob that Esten quoted doesn't realize the premium increase freight train that is headed his way. $62 teaser premium this year. Next year, the portion of the premium he pays will rise to about $200 due to the insurance surcharge and the 20% projected premium increase. Of course, that premium increase is based upon the full premium, not the subsidized amount. That $200 2014 premium is assuming his salary stays in the 20 k range. If he makes a decent living, his premiums will go to around $800 month. Yeah, he is much better off.

The best thing about Obamacare is that it ensures the next president will not be a Democrat.

Jackson

03-31-14, 22:24

Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.Actually, it's easy for him.

If the information being offered supports his position, then it's a fact.

It the information contradicts his position, then it's fiction.

Thanks,

Jax.

Jackson

03-31-14, 22:29

Letter from a "staunch Republican"

This guy actually wrote Obama, and they put his letter on the whitehouse website. You've got to think that every Republican who has benefitted from the new law, knows what a lie all the right wing emotional attacks are.Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.

Esten

04-01-14, 02:07

Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.

Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.

The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".

Member #4112

04-01-14, 12:10

Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.

Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.

The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".Esten, there is no "Grandfather" clause nor subsequent "regulations" beyond the cynical attempt by Obama waving his not so magic wand and the Democrats to shift blame from themselves to the state insurance commissioner and / or the insurance companies who are following the law as written.

A pathetic shell game by Obama in a cynical attempt to save Democrats during the mid-term elections of 2014. With any luck there the Republicans will win the senate and there will be enough scared Democrats to insure Obama's Veto pen has no ink.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-05-14, 08:03

Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.Mongers-.

Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:

-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).

- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.

Thanks,

ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).

Gandolf50

04-05-14, 09:26

Mongers-.

Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:

-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).

- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.

Thanks,

ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.

WorldTravel69

04-05-14, 11:58

I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.

This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.

Tiny12

04-05-14, 16:21

I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.

I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.

Do you or ElAlamoPalermo remember that Jackson said he'd support implementation of the Argentine health care system in the USA? He also said that would have a snowball's chance in hell of happening because USA Politicians don't have the backbone to make it happen.

While Argentina doesn't have the resources of a first world country, Hong Kong has a very similar system, that encompasses public and private sectors. It spends 5% of GDP on health expenditures. With Obamacare we're headed toward 20% of GDP. And outcomes are better in Hong Kong. For example, for males, life expectancy in Hong Kong is 82 years versus 77 years in the USA.

Jackson-.
Do you consider yourself a parasite for benefiting from subsidized health insurance in Buenos Aires? It is a fact that you and every other person who has ever utilized the health care system in Buenos Aires benefits from enormous subsidies; to begin with, electricity, gas, and water are subsidized to the tune of 70% at all Buenos Aires hospitals and clinics; insurance premiums would be significantly higher if not for this SUBSIDY. Naturally, we should all excuse Jackson from this blatant hypocrisy as he is suffering from a chronic case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS), a devastating affliction that lasts at least 1460 days but in Jackson's particularly rabid case will continue for at least 2920 days and perhaps beyond that.I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:

a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,

or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.

Tiny12

04-05-14, 17:08

This is a tale of the koch's brothers vision of the world to come: they do whatever they want to create wealth and everyone else can drop dead...including the worthless parasites who might only have a net wealth or $5 million or $10 million dollars.

The most powerful lobbyists get what they want and everyone pays............just what the founding father envisioned. I own lots of drug stocks--they have the deck stacked politically. I buy one non-formulary drug mail order from england for 50% of what it costs in the USA. The drug comes from england in a box that says made in the USA. This shit goes on nomatter which party is in the oval office or control congress.
Under "anne rand" speak: if this great "super men" have the talent to manipulate the system it is their right to do so. Sounds like a variation on Argentina or the traditional way elites robed and plundered in south america for hundreds of years.I agree 100% with your second point. Off the subject, I wonder if ElAlamoPalermo would consider you a hypocrite for owning drug stocks.

But you're flipping reality on its head. You disregard that the Democrat politicians you support and mainstream Republicans are the enablers. Instead you put the blame on people like the Koch brothers, who actually have promoted economic freedom and an end to corporate welfare. Marxism, socialism, corporate capitalism, subsidies for all types of "good" causes – they all sound like good ideas that create a fair, prosperous, egalitarian society. Yeah, the Koch brothers might go a little too far with certain things, but history has shown that what they espouse, free market capitalism, produces greater prosperity for all. Just compare Cuba and the Bahamas, Sri Lanka and Singapore, France and the United States (before Obama).

ElAlamoPalermo

04-05-14, 18:14

I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.

I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:

a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,

or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.Jackson specifically railed against people receiving subsidized healthcare, going so far as to call them parasites; since Jackson himself benefits enormously from subsidized healthcare, he should accept that he too is a parasite (at least the people Jackson calls "parasites" are receiving these benefits in their own country, whereas Jackson benefits from subsidies as an alien in Argentina). He doesn't have to agree with the way ObamaCare was legislated but in good conscience he should stop railing against the people benefiting from its subsides as doing so makes him the definition of a hypocrite.

Esten

04-06-14, 16:29

March: 192,000
February: 197,000
January: 144,000
Average job growth per month last 12 months: 183,000
Average job growth per month under Bush: 20,000 (58,000 excluding first year; 65,000 excluding last year)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/04/04/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-192000-jobs-in-march-unemployment-remains-6-7/
http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5

So much for the Affordable Care Act being a "job killer". These numbers clearly demonstrate the false and empty rhetoric of conservative ideologues.

Tiny12

04-06-14, 17:57

March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000

Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.

Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.

WorldTravel69

04-06-14, 21:41

Will you look at that.

The level is lower than when he first took office.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000

Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.

Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.

Tiny12

04-07-14, 01:06

Will you look at that.

The level is lower than when he first took office.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000Agreed. But that doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work, because they've given up on finding a job. They are not counted as unemployed. The additional 1.7 million people who have gone on social security disability since Obama became president are not counted as unemployed. I believe the majority of these individuals are suffering from back injuries and mental problems like depression.

6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.

Also, please look again at the time series I linked to: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000.

Some argue that demographic changes account for lower employment. That is, more people are retired. This doesn't make sense to me, given the pattern in the graph. Employment fell off like a stairstep during the recession and recovery to date is minimal. Also, given that we can't afford social security and medicare burdens, older people are going to have to continue working later in life or the country will go bankrupt. The percentage of people over 16 that are employed should be higher than 63% (the level around 2007) by now.

WorldTravel69

04-07-14, 03:42

The reports always did the same thing with all Presidents.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Wake Up, Now it is the Republicans that do do want to Hire anyone.

They want a third world economy in the USA.

More Profit for the ONE percent.

I hope you are not one of the Not So Fortunate!!

Agreed. But that doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work, because they've given up on finding a job. They are not counted as unemployed. The additional 1.7 million people who have gone on social security disability since Obama became president are not counted as unemployed. I believe the majority of these individuals are suffering from back injuries and mental problems like depression.

6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.

Also, please look again at the time series I linked to: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000.

Some argue that demographic changes account for lower employment. That is, more people are retired. This doesn't make sense to me, given the pattern in the graph. Employment fell off like a stairstep during the recession and recovery to date is minimal. Also, given that we can't afford social security and medicare burdens, older people are going to have to continue working later in life or the country will go bankrupt. The percentage of people over 16 that are employed should be higher than 63% (the level around 2007) by now.

Jackson

04-07-14, 04:33

...Wake Up, Now it is the Republicans that do do want to Hire anyone.

They want a third world economy in the USA.

More Profit for the ONE percent...WT, as usual you're not making any sense.

First, businesses hire employees when they need them to meet an increase in demand for their products or services, period. It has nothing to do with their political beliefs.

Second, I'm pretty sure that business ownership in the USA is more or less proportional across all political parties, and thus it's ridiculous to assume that the Republican business owners are making all of the hiring decisions in the entire country.

Third, why exactly would any investor want to destroy the 1st world economy that is making him rich, in favor of a 3rd world economy that would barely pay any returns on his investments? I know you think it's logical, but the reality is that you have no idea how business or investing works.

Fourth, given that approximately 40% of Americans consider themselves to be Republican, so it's absurd to suggest that 39% of them are going to sit around and allow 1% to destroy the American economy from which we all benefit.

Thanks,

Jax.

Member #4112

04-07-14, 09:33

WT69, Esten et al argument regarding a dropping unemployment rate is a red herring and meaningless when it ignores the labor force participation rate. Below is the definition of participation rate and it's importance when looking at unemployment figures. Next is the DOL's official participation rates for 01/2009 – 12/2013. I have included the links to both.

It is obvious the unemployment rate is much lower than the actual number of those unemployed as the participation rate has fallen from 65.7% 01/01/2009 to 62.8% 12/31/2013.

Definition of 'Participation Rate'.

A measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force. The participation rate refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. The number of people who are no longer actively searching for work would not be included in the participation rate. During an economic recession, many workers often get discouraged and stop looking for employment, as a result, the participation rate decreases.

Investopedia explains 'Participation Rate'.

The participation rate is an important metric to note when looking at unemployment data because unemployment figures reflect the number of people who are looking for jobs but are unable to secure employment.

The participation rate is important in analyzing the unemployment rate. Those who have no interest in working are not included in the participation rate but are included in the unemployment rate. An aging population can have both a positive and negative effect on the participation rate, through retirement and new people entering the workforce. The participation rate and unemployment data should be observed in tandem to give a better understanding of the overall employment status.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

Department of Labor Participation rates.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Esten

04-07-14, 11:37

6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.Actually the US trend is significantly divergent from that of Europe: US trending down to 6.7% and Europe trending above 12%. Look at the chart Tiny, you're so far off it's ridiculous.

29040

Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/08/news/economy/us-europe-unemployment/

Coming down from the 10's to the 6's after the deepest recession since the Great Depression is a respectable achievement. We are not in the 5's yet because of two macro-trends: government job losses and corporate lean efforts. But remember, conservatives said Obama was going to destroy the US economy, and that the ACA was a big part of it. A decade ago they also said tax cuts were going to be a big job creator, but the statistics show otherwise. Was it lies or ignorance? Either way, they've been wrong on the big issues, time and time again. And now that's it's clear they don't have better policies (they certainly don't have the data to prove it), they are stuck with an agenda of attack and negativity, even within their own party.

Tiny12

04-07-14, 16:24

Thanks Esten. Then you agree that your post about job growth, without mentioning population growth, was a red herring?

You are right. Instead of just mentioning unemployment, which applies just to people who are actively seeking work, I should have said Obama and other Democrats are bringing us more into line with European unemployment and UNDEREMPLOYMENT, as explained in Doppelganger's post about participation rate. As Doppel's link appears to be broken, I'll post that again here:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

And you are again right -- instead of 6.7%, the unemployment rate should be in the 5's, maybe even the 4's, five years after the end of the recession. This "Europeanization" of the United States is attributable to policies favored by Obama et al like long term government assistance to people who are not working but could, over-regulation of business, pandering to certain constituencies (example: holding up the Keystone pipeline), and encouraging American corporations through tax regulations to keep their money overseas instead of bringing it back home and investing it. Have corporations (and unincorporated businesses) become leaner as you say, or is government discouraging them from investing in America? In any event, the percentage of working-aged people employed is lower because of Obama and other Democrats.

I also agree with you that Obamacare has probably not significantly effected employment, yet. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that's going to kick in after 2016, and Obamacare will result in 1.5% to 2% fewer hours worked in 2017 to 2024.

There indeed has been a fall off in employment during the 13 years after the Bush tax cuts, which did not cut the 35% federal tax rate on corporations, and which were left in place by Obama for everyone except the 1% of the population that he villianizes. Is there cause and effect? No. Tax cuts have a positive effect on employment in the private sector. The 2008/2009 recession, Obama's policies, and 9/11 are the culprits. And 9/11 and 2008/2009 are long gone. I'd also point blame towards wasteful government spending and deficits under Obama and Bush, but believe that only effects employment adversely in the long term. One of the solutions implied in your post, more government employees, doesn't make sense to me given that government is already 40% of the economy. Yeah, we could go out and hire lots more teachers, regulators, people in the armed services, etc., and in the short term that would increase the number of the employed. It's not a wise course for the future though.

Finally, we're both remiss in not adding globalization, free trade and technology to the equation. I believe these are good btw, even though they may decrease employment in a country where the government isn't pursuing sound (i.e. neoliberal) economic policies.

Member #4112

04-07-14, 17:54

Tiny12

04-07-14, 18:11

Very interesting, Thanks for that Doppelganger. That confirms to me that the % employed (or participation rate) is more meaningful than "unemployment". I did figure that measuring unemployment the way the USA Government does would be difficult. How do you figure when someone has stopped looking for work? Why are certain people without jobs considered unemployed and others not? But I didn't consider that when you start comparing the figure between countries, you run into differences in how the numbers are calculated.

Jackson

04-07-14, 18:28

Esten's Disinformation Headline: "Coming down from the 10's to the 6's after the deepest recession since the Great Depression is a respectable achievement."

LIV's Impression: "Wow, the unemployment rate under President Obama has dropped from 10% to 6%. That's really good! I heard those nasty Republicans were lying all along, always trying to fuck things up for the rest of us."

The Facts: Job growth hasn't even kept up with the population growth. In addition, anybody who understands this subject knows that the only real employment barometer is the percentage of citizens who actually have jobs, not the so called "unemployment rate" which can and is manipulated by the entirely subjective determination of who is and is not looking for work.

The Result: Esten's Disinformation Headline wins again, because that's the only thing the LIV read.

Thanks,

Jax.

Big Boss Man

04-07-14, 23:10

The long=term chart is more interesting than the ten-year chart.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2014_all_period_M03_data.gif

I do not think that labor participation is good metric on which to evaluate a president. You might think Jimmy Carter was the best! At least that is where the curve is at its steepest slope.

BLS thinks the fall is do to the the following factors:

"The BLS lists the following factors as primary drivers of the decline in the LFP rate since 2000: (1) the aging of the baby boomer cohort; (2) the decline in the participation rate of those 16-24 years old; (3) the declining LFP rate of women (since its peak in 1999), and (4) the continuous decline of the LFP rate of men (since the 1940's). The main factors that keep the aggregate LFP rate from falling further are the increase of the LFP rate of those 55 and older and the strong attachment to the labor force of Hispanic and Asian people, who constitute the main share of the immigrant population.".

The Fed thinks that the fall in the rate is mainly due to the composition of the labor force.

"The BLS-projected change in the aggregate LFP rate between 2010 and 2020 can be broken into two components: (1) the change in the age composition of the population, and (2) the change in the LFP rates of different age groups. We found that the change in the age composition of the population accounted for most (2.18 out of 2.20 percentage points) of the decline in the aggregate LFP rate over the period. Specifically, this 2.18-percentage-point contribution to the LFP rate decline was mostly driven by a 3-percentage-point decrease in the population share of those 45-54 years old. In contrast to the 2.18-percentage-point decline in the LFP rate that resulted from changes in the age composition of the population, the change in the aggregate LFP rate due to the changes in the LFP rates of different age groups is almost zero on net. It is important to note that this value is the result of dissimilar dynamics of individual groups rather than consistent behavior of the population. For example, the largest contributions to the increase in the aggregate LFP rate are posted by those 55-64 years old (0.63 percentage points) and 65-74 years old (0.65 percentage points). Yet the increases in the LFP rates of these older workers are almost completely nullified by the decreases in the LFP rates of those 16-19 years old (–0.55 percentage points) and 20-24 years old (–0.44 percentage points).".

I think this issue was known problem in 2000 but nobody that I read or heard speak had the decline going this fast.

Esten

04-08-14, 01:15

Tiny, you are closer to the truth than Esten, he only uses numbers that agree with his bias.

Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.

While the Obama administration was trumpeting DOL's reported 6.7% unemployment rate the U6 was almost twice that rate at 12.6%.

Esten's comparison of the U3 to European unemployment rates is apples to oranges. Our U6 rate more closely mirrors European calculations for unemployment so we do look a lot like Europe with a U6 of 12.6%.Alas, the legendary King of Crapola strikes again. This is completely false. Both the US and Europe follow a definition set forth by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), with small differences. These differences have been estimated to have an effect of less than 1%. If this were not true, then all these articles you see in the media (including Fox News) showing the higher European unemployment rates would all be guilty of this apples vs. Oranges comparison. Surely someone would have called this out before. But in fact, the comparisons are valid, and Doppel is simply spreading disinformation again, like he did last week by denying there were grandfather provisions for healthcare plans in 2010 ACA regulations.

Tiny12

04-08-14, 01:32

OK, I've gone to the BLS definitions ( http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm) and re-read Doppelganger's post. As Doppelganger clearly explained, but as I failed to understand, the Labor Force Participation Rate consists of people classed as employed, plus people classed as unemployed who by definition must looking for jobs.

So the labor force participation rate suffers from the same weakness inherent in the "unemployment rate". In the words of Jackson, the labor force participation rate "is manipulated by the entirely subjective determination of who is and is not looking for work.".

The unadulterated "best" set of data to look at is the one I presented IMHO, being the employment population ratio. Here it is, using a longer time scale, like what Big Boss Man used:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1963_2014_all_period_M03_data.gif

The pattern I see is a long-term, upward trend in employment rate, probably mostly related to greater participation by women in the work force, until the 2008-2009 recession and the Obama administration, at which time it fell off a cliff and stayed where it fell. Consider that there were recessions in 1970,1974, 1980-1982,1991, 2001, and 2008-2009. Note that employment was bouncing back within a couple of years of the end of each recession, except the last, and maybe also the 2001 recession.

In response to Big Boss Man's post.

I do not think that labor participation is good metric on which to evaluate a president. You may be right. A decline in the labor force participation rate would mean there are more people like housewives, retirees, students without employment, people who can't work, people who are sitting on their asses and don't won't to work, and people who have totally given up on finding work because the economy sucks. So it's broad at the same time that it suffers from Jackson's observation.

"The BLS lists the following factors as primary drivers of the decline in the LFP rate since 2000: (1) the aging of the baby boomer cohort; (2) the decline in the participation rate of those 16-24 years old; (3) the declining LFP rate of women (since its peak in 1999), and (4) the continuous decline of the LFP rate of men (since the 1940's). The main factors that keep the aggregate LFP rate from falling further are the increase of the LFP rate of those 55 and older and the strong attachment to the labor force of Hispanic and Asian people, who constitute the main share of the immigrant population." My translation: More young people, more women and more men are both not working and not looking for work. There are more people around retirement age but they are working longer.

"The Fed thinks that the fall in the rate is mainly due to the composition of the labor force. This is the Fed's interpretation of the BLS's forecast of the change in the labor force participation rate between 2010 and 2020. I'd question whether this is relevant to the discussion and would also ask who specifically made this statement and when they made it.

Tiny12

04-08-14, 01:47

Esten

04-08-14, 01:55

Member #4112

04-08-14, 10:37

Alas, the legendary King of Crapola strikes again. This is completely false. Both the US and Europe follow a definition set forth by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), with small differences. These differences have been estimated to have an effect of less than 1%. If this were not true, then all these articles you see in the media (including Fox News) showing the higher European unemployment rates would all be guilty of this apples vs. Oranges comparison. Surely someone would have called this out before. But in fact, the comparisons are valid, and Doppel is simply spreading disinformation again, like he did last week by denying there were grandfather provisions for healthcare plans in 2010 ACA regulations.Esten, go look at the composite of European unemployment figures, it includes under employed, unemployed, etc. Very similar to our U6, one of the reasons it's higher. As Jackson has pointed out over and over, you just want to splash a propaganda headline regardless if there is any evidence to support it.

So according to Esten we have all these wonderful "grandfather clauses" in Obamacare, so why did over 3 million private policies get cancelled in 2013? Why are several multiples of this number about to be cancelled for company plans in 2014? The only "grandfather" I saw was all the Democrat waivers handed out to their friends, I guess some groups are "more equal" than others. If these "grandfather clauses" were there then why did the state insurance commissioners, including California, refuse to reinstate all those cancelled and about to be cancelled policies?

The last bastion of the liberal, make accusations and call names when you lose the argument.

Punter 127

04-08-14, 12:27

Member #4112

04-08-14, 16:59

Big Boss Man

04-08-14, 22:48

I know most of you are Libertarian rather than Conservative but I laughed after reading this article today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-stay-at-home-mothers-work/7468163/

The article describes a poll where stay-at-home mothers have risen from 23% in 1999 to 29% in 2012.6% of the rise is due to women having trouble finding a job which serves the Libertarian argument.

However a Conservative is quoted:

"I think it's something to celebrate," says Cathy Cleaver Ruse, an attorney and senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative think tank in Washington, the. See. "And I say 'Bravo' to those women who have the courage to buck the 20th-century feminist script that women can only find fulfillment in the workplace.".

Of course, the Feminist view was spelled out in Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village.".

2016 will be a fun year.

Esten

04-08-14, 23:11

When people quoted the official unemployment rate (U3)...

Conservatives accused them of disinformation.
Conservatives said No! You have to use the U6!
Conservatives said No! You have to look at population growth!
Conservatives said No! The only real employment barometer is the percentage of citizens who actually have jobs!

Yes, Conservatives have been consistent on this for decades. It might seem like there is a sudden interest in other metrics since Obama became president, but not so. There is no bias here to downplay the fact that unemployment has been reduced over 3 percentage points through the creation of 8.5 Million private sector jobs since the passage of the ACA. LOL

29041

Esten

04-08-14, 23:22

Esten, as you are so enamored with ObamaCare what about these falsehoods?

The progressives are all running scared and for good reason, every progressive who had anything to do with ramming the ObamaCare Scheme down the throats of the American people needs to be fired. November 4, 2014 is "Purge The Progressives Day." boot 'em all out at every level of government across the country. The time has come to stop empowering these menaces.

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.

The Result: The Disinformation Headline wins again because that's all that the LIV read.Doppel, Punter and Jackson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L28CnhmeAD4

Member #4112

04-09-14, 12:09

Esten, WT69, is that all you got?

Pretty pathetic responses.

By the way Obama had the methods by which unemployment, U3, is calculated changed shortly after he came into office.

Still waiting on those answers guys.

Finding it hard to defend the indefensible?

Jackson

04-09-14, 12:48

Esten, as you are so enamored with ObamaCare what about these falsehoods?

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period. NOT.

If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan, period. NOT (not withstand Esten's assurance about grandfather clauses).

ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs. NOT.

ObamaCare will save families $2,500/ year. NOT.

I await your excuses and twisted logic with interest.

Since you love the U3 so much, please explain how under U3 once you run out of unemployment benefits, POOF you cease to be unemployed as you don't count anymore.

Explain to me why the U6 and the labor force participation rate are not better predictors of our economic health? Other than of course it makes the Dem's look bad.Notice how Esten didn't even attempt to respond to Doppelganger's statements, but instead posted a link to a video.

Of course he can't refute the "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period." whopper, but Doppelganger's post couldn't be left unchallenged least an LIV accidentally stumble onto this thread, so Esten posts a "video bauble" as a distraction for said LIV.

Another disinformation mission accomplished.

Thanks,

Jax.

Tiny12

04-09-14, 14:18

Tiny, thank you for your effort at some balance. Though we still disagree on quite a bit. I do not think that quoting the U3 is a red herring or disinformation, it is the standard, historical benchmark to judge and compare the US unemployment rate. Other metrics are available, but then one must look at the trends in these metrics over time.

Look at the trends in the chart I posted. Clearly, the US is heading one direction and Europe the opposite direction. If you switch to a U6 metric the trends will be the same, just offset. Either way, the data contradicts your claim that Obama is taking the US in the direction of Europe.

I am glad to see you agree that the ACA has probably not significantly affected employment (yet).

IMO the centerpiece of Bush's presidency were his two rounds of significant tax cuts. The failure of his presidency to produce significant job growth is a failure of tax cuts to produce significant job growth. In fact, it was even worse, because keeping the unemployment rate down increasingly depended on a growing real estate and construction bubble. I'll agree tax cuts have potential to increase hiring, but you need underlying demand. This brings us back to the old supply (Republican) vs. Demand (Democrat) argument. Corporate America has gone through significant lean efforts that it seems you may not be aware of. These have allowed companies to do a lot more, with less. This is a huge trend that you probably won't hear much about in the right wing media, because they are too busy blaming Obama for everything. Not only do I have some knowledge about this, in fact I have signed off paperwork to approve projects that have eliminated headcounts. The corporate buzzword for this is "improved operational efficiency". When you look at these proposals you pretty much can't argue with them, as they are very compelling on the bottom line.Esten, The red herring I mentioned was showing that the number of jobs in the USA had increased, without mentioning population had grown as fast or faster. Looking at OECD harmonized data, I don't think the numbers in your graph, unemployment in the USA versus Europe, are comparing apples and oranges. The USA should be higher and/or Europe should be lower. The trends over the last few years have indeed been toward lower unemployment in the USA and higher in Europe. But you're cherry picking data, that's a small part of the big picture, as I and others have pointed out. No need to go over that again, except perhaps to say the trends of unemployment rates in the USA and Europe in your graph are not secular trends. Instead, they're related to economic cycles and an increasing number of people in the USA that no longer work but are not considered "unemployed", given "unemployed" only includes people who are actively looking for work.

The same for the tax cuts. You can't just zero in on Bush's tax cuts and say higher taxes are better for the economy, which, respectfully, IMHO is crazy. You have to look at tax cuts under Kennedy and Reagan. Compare the performance of countries with lower taxes like Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and, before Obama, the United States to countries with higher taxes. Look at the experience of the rest of the world, for example, many countries in Europe that have lowered income tax substantially on business because they figured out high taxes hurt the economy. Consider 9/11 and the 2008/2009 recession. We've been over that ad nauseum too.

While I was loathe to admit it, from time to time you used to come up with some formidable arguments. You caused me to realize, hey, maybe this is more complicated than I thought it was. But recently you've been sounding like the propaganda arm for the Democrat party. No elections are going to be swayed by what you post here. It would be interesting to know what you believe, instead of your party.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-09-14, 17:27

The Democrat party screwed the pooch

By enacting ObamaCare, they cost millions of Americans their health insurance. So what do Progressives do in an election year?

Why they double down on stupid, and stubbornly defend the failed policy, that's what. Esten and his ilk are in full campaign mode and the order of the day is spin baby spin. Heck they even dug up Rock Harders dusted him off and gave him a new name to help with the spin. But the American people are living the ObamaCare nightmare and you can't spin that away.

The progressives are all running scared and for good reason, every progressive who had anything to do with ramming the ObamaCare Scheme down the throats of the American people needs to be fired. November 4, 2014 is "Purge The Progressives Day." boot 'em all out at every level of government across the country. The time has come to stop empowering these menaces.

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.Jackson and all his hypocritical fascist fan boys can ***** and moan all they want, predict the massive defeat of the Democratic Party in the November 2014 mid term elections, howl at the moon relentlessly as a symptom of their Obama Derangement Syndrome but it will not change this simple fact: ObamaCare is the law of the land and is here to stay. There is absolutely nothing Republicans can do to repeal it, plain and simple. This is guaranteed until at least January 2017 and very likely beyond that as well because the Republicans will probably nominate an unelectable candidate to stand against Hillary Clinton. After seven years have gone by and the ranks of those enrolled in ObamaCare has swelled to 30-40 million people does anybody with a brain really believe it could ever be repealed outright?

Member #4112

04-09-14, 17:55

Jackson and all his hypocritical fascist fan boys can ***** and moan all they want, predict the massive defeat of the Democratic Party in the November 2014 mid term elections, howl at the moon relentlessly as a symptom of their Obama Derangement Syndrome but it will not change this simple fact: ObamaCare is the law of the land and is here to stay. There is absolutely nothing Republicans can do to repeal it, plain and simple. This is guaranteed until at least January 2017 and very likely beyond that as well because the Republicans will probably nominate an unelectable candidate to stand against Hillary Clinton. After seven years have gone by and the ranks of those enrolled in ObamaCare has swelled to 30-40 million people does anybody with a brain really believe it could ever be repealed outright?Here we go with the name calling denigrating your opponents again.

Typical Liberal / Progressive behavior for the people who state they are open minded and tolerant of others view point, that is until you disagree with them. Then its Katy bar the door!

While ObamaCare is the law of the land now, I don't recall anyone saying it was not, that does not mean it will be the law of the land until 2017. Should the Republicans hold the House and gain the Senate, it would be a simple matter to choke off funding for it in a general appropriations bill. Obama may well veto it but then the Democrats favorite whipping boy for government shutdowns would no longer be the Republicans but their number one boy. Obama.

There is also a very good chance enough Democrats will cross the isle to override the veto.

I truly hope Hilary runs and loses again. She was the anointed one in 2008 and a nobody beat her. Who knows where the next nobody in her party will come from.

I do agree about poor choices by the Republicans for presidential candidates, but I think they have pretty much run out of geezers to run this time around.

With the young invincibles failing to sign up for ObamaCare, you will see a rise in uninsured and without their premium payments a fiscal collapse of ObamaCare, so your 30-40 million is a pipe dream IMHO.

Very little the Democrats and Obama told the public about ObamaCare has been truthful, with each month bringing new revelations about how poorly this law was written, how impossible it will be to implement and how many lies were told about it to the public. There have been what 37 or 38 delays in critical portions of the law by presidential fiat? If it were such a great law why all the delays?

Have you noticed how many of the primary architects of this debacle are not running for re-election but choosing to retire rather than face defeat at the polls?

ElAlamoPalermo

04-09-14, 22:00

Here we go with the name calling denigrating your opponents again.

Typical Liberal / Progressive behavior for the people who state they are open minded and tolerant of others view point, that is until you disagree with them. Then its Katy bar the door!

While ObamaCare is the law of the land now, I don't recall anyone saying it was not, that does not mean it will be the law of the land until 2017. Should the Republicans hold the House and gain the Senate, it would be a simple matter to choke off funding for it in a general appropriations bill. Obama may well veto it but then the Democrats favorite whipping boy for government shutdowns would no longer be the Republicans but their number one boy. Obama.

There is also a very good chance enough Democrats will cross the isle to override the veto.

I truly hope Hilary runs and loses again. She was the anointed one in 2008 and a nobody beat her. Who knows where the next nobody in her party will come from.

I do agree about poor choices by the Republicans for presidential candidates, but I think they have pretty much run out of geezers to run this time around.

With the young invincibles failing to sign up for ObamaCare, you will see a rise in uninsured and without their premium payments a fiscal collapse of ObamaCare, so your 30-40 million is a pipe dream IMHO.

Very little the Democrats and Obama told the public about ObamaCare has been truthful, with each month bringing new revelations about how poorly this law was written, how impossible it will be to implement and how many lies were told about it to the public. There have been what 37 or 38 delays in critical portions of the law by presidential fiat? If it were such a great law why all the delays?

Have you noticed how many of the primary architects of this debacle are not running for re-election but choosing to retire rather than face defeat at the polls?Never have I ever posted on this forum that ObamaCare is a "great law"; it's certainly NOT a great law and the way it was legislated was unfortunate. That being said, it did eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and allows for 20-somethings to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, all of which are worthwhile progress. As a result of the flawed ObamaCare for the first time everyone in the United States has access to affordable healthcare, which IS progress. If the US Congress was actually functional, a bi-partisan effort would be made to work out the kinks in ObamaCare and make whatever changes are necessary to allow for things to run more efficiently; unfortunately there is an endemic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) among the Republican caucus which prevents this from getting done.

Regarding your 2016 election predictions, you and the rest of Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys howled for months that Obama would be slaughtered by Romney in the 2012 election and the opposite happened which goes to show how completely out of touch Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys truly are with the political reality in the United States.

El Perro

04-09-14, 23:10

Rc Collins

04-09-14, 23:45

though Hillary versus Jeb could be interesting.No it wouldn't, we've seen that show before, need names other than Bush and Clinton. Bill Gates versus anyone of the Koch Brothers or even Darrell (I like investigations more than life itself) Issa versus Eric (I don't know anything) Holder would be good theater. Some new blood would do the country good but we'll probably get the same old boring reruns.

El Perro

04-10-14, 01:02

No it wouldn't, we've seen that show before, need names other than Bush and Clinton. Bill Gates versus anyone of the Koch Brothers or even Darrell (I like investigations more than life itself) Issa versus Eric (I don't know anything) Holder would be good theater. Some new blood would do the country good but we'll probably get the same old boring reruns."Interesting" from the perspective of a competitive contest. I thought that would have been clear from the context of the discussion related to ElAlamoPalermo's post.

Tiny12

04-10-14, 01:46

Never have I ever posted on this forum that ObamaCare is a "great law"; it's certainly NOT a great law and the way it was legislated was unfortunate. That being said, it did eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and allows for 20-somethings to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, all of which are worthwhile progress. As a result of the flawed ObamaCare for the first time everyone in the United States has access to affordable healthcare, which IS progress. If the US Congress was actually functional, a bi-partisan effort would be made to work out the kinks in ObamaCare and make whatever changes are necessary to allow for things to run more efficiently; unfortunately there is an endemic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) among the Republican caucus which prevents this from getting done.

Regarding your 2016 election predictions, you and the rest of Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys howled for months that Obama would be slaughtered by Romney in the 2012 election and the opposite happened which goes to show how completely out of touch Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys truly are with the political reality in the United States. RH, You recognize this was "certainly NOT a great law." Then why are you jumping through hoops trying to justify it?

You take a system where doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, and lawyers who sue all of the preceding subvert the free market and fuck the consumer. Then you add a 2000 page law THAT NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS BOTHERED TO READ and tens of thousands of pages of associated regulations and you put that system on steroids. This is going to eat up $20 of every $100 of GDP generated in America. You think we can afford that? Going to a true free market would work better. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, socialized medicine for those who care to use it would work better. The chief of the fan boys has said as much. How does that square with your definition of fascism? The truth is you're promoting a truly fucked up system for the sole reason that the Democrat Party supports it. You guys need to quit spouting all the crap you "learn" on MSNBC and, in the words of WT69, get some brains. That includes you WT69.

I predicted here that Romney would lose, even though he was by far the better candidate. Gary Johnson was the best. There are unfortunately many Americans, like many Venezuelans and many Argentines, that are dupes in the hands of the fascist/populist left.

Esten

04-10-14, 02:43

Notice how Esten didn't even attempt to respond to Doppelganger's statements, but instead posted a link to a video.

Of course he can't refute the "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period." whopper, but Doppelganger's post couldn't be left unchallenged least an LIV accidentally stumble onto this thread, so Esten posts a "video bauble" as a distraction for said LIV.Notice how Doppel was throwing recycled mud, and Jackson chimes in to give the false impression that his statements have not been refuted before. In fact, I addressed all except one of Doppel's ACA statements before. Go look up my posts over the past month. The one ACA statement I don't recall responding to before is the one on reducing healthcare costs. Some reports say there is not enough data in yet to attribute falling healthcare spending to the ACA, but others say there are signs that this projection will be true. In fact, spending reductions in the ACA are projected to significantly extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. See two links below. Although I'm sure next week Doppel will be howling, "Hey Esten, what about the false claim that Obamacare reduces healthcare costs?" Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

Tiny12

04-10-14, 08:52

Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.htmlWonderful, health care costs dropped from 17.2% to 17.1% of GDP one year. But according to the Democrat-leaning Brookings Institute they're potentially on their way to close to 25% of GDP in 20 years. And the ACA didn't do jack to lower costs, because it hadn't even kicked in:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202013/2013b%20chandra%20healthcare%20spending.pdf

Please note that they reference your Forbes article on page 9, where they debunk the credit the ACA has received for lowering costs.

Democrats and mainstream Republicans jump all over the sort of information you provided if they think it's to their political advantage. It gives them an excuse not to deal with long term problems in a way that might hurt them with voters. Reforms to Medicare certainly don't win elections.

So, fantastic. Smart Democrats will be tripling and quadrupling down on this. Yeah, maybe they are smart. Many will be out of office or dead before the health care system bankrupts the country.

WorldTravel69

04-12-14, 14:54

Sign this.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch?source=mo&id=94412-27461261-LezppQx

Jackson

04-12-14, 17:18

Here's how the petition should be written:

We, citizens of the United States, denounce you, Charles and David Koch George Soros, for using your vast wealth -- more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40 percent of Americans -- to corrupt our democracy. You are thereby undermining the most precious gift we possess, our democratic system of government. You deserve to be shamed and condemned by all Americans.Thanks,

Jax.

Member #4112

04-12-14, 18:03

Notice how Doppel was throwing recycled mud, and Jackson chimes in to give the false impression that his statements have not been refuted before. In fact, I addressed all except one of Doppel's ACA statements before. Go look up my posts over the past month. The one ACA statement I don't recall responding to before is the one on reducing healthcare costs. Some reports say there is not enough data in yet to attribute falling healthcare spending to the ACA, but others say there are signs that this projection will be true. In fact, spending reductions in the ACA are projected to significantly extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. See two links below. Although I'm sure next week Doppel will be howling, "Hey Esten, what about the false claim that Obamacare reduces healthcare costs?" Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.htmlHow is it we always hear about SOCIAL SECUIRTY, into which every working American contributed funds which were matched by their employer, will run out of money by a certain date.

But we never hear about WELFARE, into which NONE of the recipients of said program paid a single penny, running out of money?

How is it we always hear about MEDICARE, into which every working American contributed funds which were matched by their employer, will run out of money by a certain date.

But we never hear about MEDICAID, into which NONE of the recipients of said program paid a single penny, running out of money?

Funny how that works.

By the way Esten, it's not mud it just the truth.

Now the next shoe to drop is when the IRS starts fining folks without healthcare. Wonder if the number is going to match the number for those HHS say are uninsured?

Remember, all the company plans which are non-conforming with ObamaCare will be receiving cancellation notices in a few short months.

When that starts Esten, can you say Grandfather?

Tiny12

04-12-14, 18:46

Sign this.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch?source=mo&id=94412-27461261-LezppQxFar from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

- Charles G. Koch, Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286

It would be nice if Soros had argued for the demise of his tax preferences, like Koch did for ethanol. He did not, and thanks largely to Democrat politicians, hedge fund managers have continued to park income offshore tax free and take advantage of carried interest.

Esten

04-13-14, 15:11

I have to laugh everytime I see a conservative selling "freedom". What a wonderful message. Everyone wants freedom.

But dig deeper and you'll see it's merely a feel-good slogan, because the underlying effects of conservative policies are not always good for people (and therefore not sellable). So they resort to selling "freedom".

In a free market the strong tend to get stronger. And sometimes, even stronger and stronger. When they get too big, you might find yourself at their mercy. Their motive is profit, not your welfare. And so you need rules and regulations to keep the powerful in check. Just last week, we learned Bank of America illegally charged its customers for credit monitoring and credit reporting services that were not received. The bank was ordered to pay roughly $772 million in refunds to customers and fines to federal regulators. You can thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Obama for that one. We see the effects of free markets creating tremendous wealth in the top 1%, and some in government trying to counter that with redistributive legislation, that many of the very wealthy (like Buffett and Soros) support. While the "freedom" sellers attempt to demonize regulations and redistribution, these are usually good things for the average American. In some cases, they actually lead to more freedom, like the freedom the ACA has given millions of Americans to obtain affordable health insurance and not have coverage denied or dropped, including more freedom to change jobs without losing access to affordable coverage.

Koch's position on ethanol subsidies doesn't mean much. What is ethanol, like 5% of their business? And how much would that really impact their individual wealth? Whereas liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.

Esten

04-13-14, 16:00

Tiny12

04-13-14, 16:35

On the other hand, the policies of the 1% who run this country ain't geared to helping people, they're geared to further enriching the one percent. The government is nothing but a bunch of lackeys for the 1%. It is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Read the recent McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court! Utter nonsense with no other purpose than give even more power to the one percent.

In a free market the strong tend to get stronger. And sometimes, even stronger and stronger. When they get too big, you might find yourself at their mercy. Their motive is profit, not your welfare. And so you need rules and regulations to keep the powerful in check....We see the effects of free markets creating tremendous wealth in the top 1%, and some in government trying to counter that with redistributive legislation, that many of the very wealthy (like Buffett and Soros) support. While the "freedom" sellers attempt to demonize regulations and redistribution, these are usually good things for the average American. In some cases, they actually lead to more freedom, like the freedom the ACA has given millions of Americans to obtain affordable health insurance and not have coverage denied or dropped, including more freedom to change jobs without losing access to affordable coverage.
Koch's position on ethanol subsidies doesn't mean much. What is ethanol, like 5% of their business? And how much would that really impact their individual wealth? Whereas liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.The experience of the world over the last 100 years is that free markets work and the alternatives do not. Yes, competition and regulation are required. Crony capitalism should be stamped out.

The top 1% thing is a classic example of Jackson's LIV explanations. And also an example of how Esten was correct when he said the Democrat party is cohesive while Republicans tend to infight. I would rephrase that, and say that many Democrats blindly believe whatever their leaders say, no matter how ridiculous, while many Republicans and Independents think for themselves.

Anyway, Obama and Rockin Bob say the 1% (many of whom are Democrats) and the Republicans are responsible for all the ills that have befallen America. Because Obama said it, it must be true. Like Chavez and the Kirchner's, Obama finds scapegoats (Republicans and the top 1%) and pins his own party's failures on them. Also, as exemplified by the McCutcheon supreme court verdict that Rockin Bob condemned and the Obama administration's attempts to alter rules for 501 (c)(4)'s that Esten defended, the leaders of the Democrat Party appear to believe, like Chavez and the Kirchner's, that free speech should be muzzled in the interests of the party.

The implementation of the Buffet rule would really impact Warren's individual wealth? He would take a significant hit? That's ridiculous. Almost all of Buffet's wealth is taxed at the corporate level, and virtually none at the individual level. The Buffet rule would have virtually no effect on his wealth. I estimate the Buffet rule would take about 0.009% of his wealth annually. Soros was notorious for avoiding taxes through loopholes during his time in the fund management business.

Finally, Esten, I believe in universal health care too. Unfortunately, Obamacare does not provide it, leaving 30 million uninsured in the year 2022, and it doubles down on a failed system where costs are out of control and quality of care is not commensurate with cost.

Member #4112

04-13-14, 17:02

Hey Doppel, how about let's put a wager on some of your posts. Then we'll see how confident you are.

#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.

#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.

C'mon big guy, let's see what you got. Any attempt to avoid this challenge or counter with different wagers will be seen as an admission of a lack of confidence in your own words.

#1 Total misinformation as always.
Are you talking Grandfather or those who received waivers ie "grandfathered" from Obama?

You know all the Democrat's friends like the UNIONS.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies.

So I guess it's ok for you to assert there is a grandfathered clause in ObamaCare but due to Obama's regulations restricting whose plan can qualify for that status you would have to be a one horned, one eyed, flying purple people eater. Not many qualifying for that one.

Check out the link it explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

Under #2 who exactly are your talking about when you say "commonly cited" since I have seen BOTH out there depending on who wanted to slant the numbers to support their argument. You know, like you!

This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"!

Your challenge is as meaningless as many of your posts.

Jackson

04-14-14, 19:41

This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"!

Your challenge is as meaningless as many of your posts.Esten is a propagandist.

However, his posts are not intended to sway any of us as he knows that we are paying attention to what's going on in our country.

Esten posts here solely to interdict any ideologically vacillating LIVs who may inadvertently stumble upon this thread.

You may consider his posts as chaff intended to cloud the real picture.

In this regard, he has done an excellent job.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

04-14-14, 20:51

I once characterized Esten as either immoral, amoral, hopelessly naive or just plain stupid, I have since lowered my opinion of him.

I might add I have added several others to that category.

Don.Since we know that you were a winner of several Nobel Prizes, and as a recipient of the Medal of Honor, you will be buried in Arlington.

Member #4112

04-14-14, 21:31

Esten, et al.

Talk about cost, take a look at this article. Costs have gone and are going to continue to go WAY UP under ObamaCare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/survey-shows-obamacare-sending-premiums-rising-at-fastest-clip-in-decades/

SteveC

04-14-14, 21:55

I wouldn't trust Fox 'Fair and balanced my arse' News on this subject, it does have a reputation for lies (I.e. Intentional falsehoods rather than disagreements). How about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. On Monday it revised its cost estimate for the health care law.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

The nonpartisan office now believes that the ACA will cost the government $5 billion less than projected in 2014 and $104 billion less for the 2015-2024 period. It also found "no clear evidence" that premiums will surge in 2015, noting that "enrollees in the future will be healthier, on average, than the smaller number of people who are obtaining such coverage in 2014." The agency estimated that the national average premium for individual silver policy plans would increase by $100 that year.

The CBO attributes the additional savings to government, relative to the CBO's last assessment from February 2014, to lower-than expected premiums, which in turn lowered the cost for exchange subsidies, and higher-than expected revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans.

"Despite projecting that slightly more people will receive insurance coverage through exchanges over the 2015–2024 period than they had anticipated previously," the report says. "CBO and JCT project that costs for exchange subsidies and related spending will be $164 billion (or 14 percent) below the previous projection, mainly because of the downward revision to expected exchange premiums." The office also predicted that plans offered in the exchanges will provide wider provider networks and higher reimbursement rates to providers as enrollment increases. "That pattern will put upward pressure on exchange premiums over the next couple of years, although CBO and JCT anticipate that the plans' characteristics will stabilize after 2016," it found.

The office also concluded that the law's so-called shock absorbers — reinsurance payments that are distributed to insurers that attract high-cost enrollees — "reduced exchange premiums this year by approximately 10 percent" and will "reduce premiums by smaller amounts in 2015 and 2016." CBO found additional savings in Medicaid, revising downward government spending per adult enrolled in the program. Ultimately, 12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 as a result of the law. Twenty-six million more "will be insured each year from 2017 through 2024 than would have been the case without the ACA," the CBO concluded.

SteveC

04-14-14, 22:04

I expect your next post to condemn as a propagandist anyone quoting Fox News.

Esten is a propagandist.

Esten

04-15-14, 00:31

I come here for 2/3 amusement and 1/3 intellectual stimulation. I often laugh out loud at some things I read here. Most of the propaganda is from folks afflicted with ODS, who bond with each other in their Fox News groupthink. When I post things that contradict their propaganda, I am accused of posting propaganda. Too funny! But behind the facade, they know where they stand and where I stand.

Notice the timing of Jackson's post, as Doppel attempts to deflect from not standing behind his own statements. His train of thought must be, "Esten is exposing my buddy's false information, now would be a good time to intervene and label Esten a propagandist.".

solely to interdict any ideologically vacillating LIVsI must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.

Tiny12

04-15-14, 00:54

I must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

You may consider his posts as chaff intended to cloud the real picture.
I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.

Tres3

04-15-14, 01:20

Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.The only way to make Esten leave is to ignore him. He relishes the anti-Esten posts, and thrives on stirring up the anti-Esten sentiment among the more conservative posters on this board. That is one of the reasons that he does not care about separating fact from fiction.

Tres3.

Member #4112

04-15-14, 10:54

SteveC

04-15-14, 20:44

As the 2014 mid-terms get closer Esten and his comrades become more shrill.

They ignore what they don't agree with and embrace what they do.

Prime example is CBO numbers. They rave about the "non-partisan" CBO when they like the numbers, but call the CBO a bunch of partisan hacks when they don't.As the one posting the link to the CBO: I didn't 'rave', and have never disparaged the office either. I do generally mock, with good reason, anything sourced from Fox News which never fails to deliver its anti-Obama agenda.

Can anyone deny that Fox has a well deserved reputation for a consistent anti-Obama and right wing stance? If people want to complain about members posting propaganda, they should start there. Anyone disputing the figures from the CBO? And as for becoming more shrill, I think the fear of the right that public opinion is moving in favour of the ACA is becoming more palpable by the day.

As for the comments about Esten, I always remember the old adage, "When losing the argument, attack the messenger"!

Jackson

04-15-14, 21:43

I think the fear of the right that public opinion is moving in favour of the ACA is becoming more palpable by the day.Let me see if I understand this:

The more people that are registered for the program that gives them free money in the form of subsidized health care, the more people like the program that gives them the free money in the form of subsidized health care.

No shit.

The only thing ObamaCare proves is that you can buy votes with government programs that give away free money.

Thanks,

Jax.

Member #4112

04-15-14, 23:34

As the one posting the link to the CBO: I didn't 'rave', and have never disparaged the office either. I do generally mock, with good reason, anything sourced from Fox News which never fails to deliver its anti-Obama agenda.

Can anyone deny that Fox has a well deserved reputation for a consistent anti-Obama and right wing stance? If people want to complain about members posting propaganda, they should start there. Anyone disputing the figures from the CBO? And as for becoming more shrill, I think the fear of the right that public opinion is moving in favour of the ACA is becoming more palpable by the day.

As for the comments about Esten, I always remember the old adage, "When losing the argument, attack the messenger"!Lets put this in proper prospective.

First Fox whips everyone for news numbers / viewers, are you trying to tell me only right wing people watch?

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center, but when compared to the major new organizations, NBC CBS ABC & PMSNBC, who are all rabid Obama supporters as well as being so far LEFT of Center to nearly make them part of the Democrat National Committee I would suppose Fox does look anti-Obama for pointing out all the warts.

As far as the CBO they never get it right on long term projections due to the assumptions they are forced to accept are rarely anywhere near reality.

My friend you need to look at the polls regarding how unhappy folks are with ObamaCare and it's only going to get worse before the midterms with company policies getting cancelled and the IRS fining those who did not sign up for health insurance. Why do you think Obama is playing the RACE CARD again?

There are not enough Democrats or Republicans to elect anyone and Obama / Democrats are losing the independents, who will decide the mid terms, in droves.

Add to that the independent base is energized because they are pissed off at Obama and the Democrats for all the lies, the Republican base is energized and smell blood in the water, while the Democrat base is dispirited and disinterested which will probably result in low turn out.

2014 could make 2010 look like a Sunday school picnic.

We will see November 4, 2014.

The only person I named was Esten, but if you are one of his minions and if the shoe fits....

Esten

04-16-14, 00:56

It also found "no clear evidence" that premiums will surge in 2015, noting that "enrollees in the future will be healthier, on average, than the smaller number of people who are obtaining such coverage in 2014." This quote from the CBO report I thought was the most interesting. It makes sense, those needing or wanting to use healthcare services the most (i.e., the costliest to insurers) were probably the most likely to sign up in the first ACA open enrollment. The healthier people who decided to pay the tax penalty will be more likely to sign up in future years when the penalty increases. Of course it's their choice, the law does not force anyone to buy insurance. But this will most likely have an offsetting effect on premium increases. The CBO says premiums should increase by about 6 percent per year after 2016.

More broadly, the ACA has a number of cost-control measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs over the long run. It may be too early to tell how well they will work, but extending the solvency of Medicare until 2026 is clear, and that's directly from the Medicare trustees report. The ACA accomplishes this in part by reducing payments to private insurers. This (and other measures) contradicts claims that the ACA is some big giveaway to insurers. Spending reductions are projected to take more than $700 billion out of health spending over the next 10 years. This is PRECISELY the type of serious cost-cutting that conservatives say we need, to "live within our means" and ensure our safety nets are preserved for years to come.

BTW Steve, don't take anything Doppel writes too seriously. I have been on the board with him for years. I am sure he is a nice man in person, but he is a slippery, fact-challenged individual, who could easily be the poster child for ODS. He can't admit when he's wrong, and when he gets called out on his incorrect information, he recycles his "Tick Tock" post to reassure himself. It's more likely you will have a threesome with Kate Upton and Emily Ratajkowski, than you will have a factual dialogue with Doppelganger.

Esten

04-16-14, 01:53

Are you talking Grandfather or those who received waivers ie "grandfathered" from Obama?

You know all the Democrat's friends like the UNIONS.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies. No, nothing to do with waivers or unions. Rather, the regulations that allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans that were purchased before March 23,2010. These plans did not have to meet all ACA requirements. Insurance companies could continue those non-conforming policies at their choice, as long as they met a subset of requirements.

Under #2 who exactly are your talking about when you say "commonly cited" since I have seen BOTH out there depending on who wanted to slant the numbers to support their argument. The official unemployment numbers published by Eurostat.

So Doppel, what say you on that wager?

ElAlamoPalermo

04-16-14, 04:33

Let me see if I understand this:

The more people that are registered for the program that gives them free money in the form of subsidized health care, the more people like the program that gives them the free money in the form of subsidized health care.

No shit.

The only thing ObamaCare proves is that you can buy votes with government programs that give away free money.

Thanks,

Jax.Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation. It boggles the mind that anybody with a rational thought process can attempt to argue that providing citizens with affordable healthcare is a bad idea. Can the citizens / governments of all the G7 and G20 countries all be wrong by providing their citizens with affordable healthcare? Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite for directly and personally benefiting from subsidized healthcare as a foreigner in Argentina all the while admonishing US citizens for benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country.

Thanks.

EAP.

SteveC

04-16-14, 05:39

Lets put this in proper prospective.

First Fox whips everyone for news numbers / viewers, are you trying to tell me only right wing people watch?

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center, but when compared to the major new organizations, NBC CBS ABC & PMSNBC, who are all rabid Obama supporters as well as being so far LEFT of Center to nearly make them part of the Democrat National Committee I would suppose Fox does look anti-Obama for pointing out all the warts.

As far as the CBO they never get it right on long term projections due to the assumptions they are forced to accept are rarely anywhere near reality.

My friend you need to look at the polls regarding how unhappy folks are with ObamaCare and it's only going to get worse before the midterms with company policies getting cancelled and the IRS fining those who did not sign up for health insurance. Why do you think Obama is playing the RACE CARD again?

There are not enough Democrats or Republicans to elect anyone and Obama / Democrats are losing the independents, who will decide the mid terms, in droves.

Add to that the independent base is energized because they are pissed off at Obama and the Democrats for all the lies, the Republican base is energized and smell blood in the water, while the Democrat base is dispirited and disinterested which will probably result in low turn out.

2014 could make 2010 look like a Sunday school picnic.

We will see November 4, 2014.

The only person I named was Esten, but if you are one of his minions and if the shoe fits....A good source for viewing demographics is http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/.

To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets.

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center. Glad you can bring some humour into the debate! Fox is a bit to the right, anyone to the left of centre is rabid. Nice to get a sense of perspective.

Any evidence of the CBO being out of touch with reality, or is it so just when you disagree with its findings?

Admittedly the polls do show more opposed to the ACA than if favour, but only because the numbers opposing include those that don't think it goes far enough. The numbers are still moving in its favour though. Race Card?

Agreed, the 2014 midterms will be very interesting. Can't wait for the predictions to start on here.

Finally, I'm no-one's minion, any more than you'd consider yourself to be one of Jax's lap dogs.

Member #4112

04-16-14, 12:37

No, nothing to do with waivers or unions. Rather, the regulations that allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans that were purchased before March 23,2010. These plans did not have to meet all ACA requirements. Insurance companies could continue those non-conforming policies at their choice, as long as they met a subset of requirements.

The official unemployment numbers published by Eurostat.

So Doppel, what say you on that wager?Ok Esten let's look at Eurostat.

See this link:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_and_underemployment_statistics#.

Eurostat uses something close to both our U3 and U6 numbers. U6 is a more complete view of unemployment / underemployment than the U3 for reasons stated many times prior to this. You don't refute the number you just ignore it.

The Eurostat article clearly agrees with this argument, so again you are just cherry picking numbers that agree with your bias.

As stated earlier, both numbers are out there and are used to bolster the writer's argument.

Again people like you.

Member #4112

04-16-14, 13:11

A good source for viewing demographics is http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/.

To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets.

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center. Glad you can bring some humour into the debate! Fox is a bit to the right, anyone to the left of centre is rabid. Nice to get a sense of perspective.

Any evidence of the CBO being out of touch with reality, or is it so just when you disagree with its findings?

Admittedly the polls do show more opposed to the ACA than if favour, but only because the numbers opposing include those that don't think it goes far enough. The numbers are still moving in its favour though. Race Card?

Agreed, the 2014 midterms will be very interesting. Can't wait for the predictions to start on here.

Finally, I'm no-one's minion, any more than you'd consider yourself to be one of Jax's lap dogs.Fox News beats all the other cable news sources combined. Any argument here?

Fox News came in 2nd to top major broadcasters in 2013, which means two of the major broadcasters fell below Fox. Any argument here?

Are you trying to tell me with those results only WASP angry old men comprise the only demographic Fox is getting? Come on.

Of course you are going to say Fox is far right, a few of their folks like Hannity are, but the majority are not. When comparing Fox to the NBC, CBS and ABC, who are in the bag for Obama, of course Fox looks anti-Obama to YOU. When the old school national news media is so far left anyone near the center looks extreme in comparison.

Jackson

04-16-14, 15:18

They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation...who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc.Once again, if you disagree with ObamaCare, then you must be a racist.

It's official guys, the only thing the intellectually bankrupt liberals have left is the race card, which you can expect to see played again and again in the coming months.

Thanks,

Jax.

Tiny12

04-16-14, 16:53

Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation. It boggles the mind that anybody with a rational thought process can attempt to argue that providing citizens with affordable healthcare is a bad idea. Can the citizens / governments of all the G7 and G20 countries all be wrong by providing their citizens with affordable healthcare? Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite for directly and personally benefiting from subsidized healthcare as a foreigner in Argentina all the while admonishing US citizens for benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country.

Thanks.

EAP.EAP / RH, Respectfully, you've been duped to paint your opponents as racists and misogynists. Democrat politicians, Eric Holder, MSNBC, and various left wing web sites are lying about this in order to increase turnout in the 2014 election. Today's Wall Street Journal makes the case more eloquently than I can:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501572356272540?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303663604579501572356272540.html

For the third time, Jackson's posts contradict your assertions. He has praised the health care system in Argentina and proposed it as a possible alternative, if it were politically feasible, for the USA. Please see

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435044&highlight=Argentina#post435044

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=Argentina#post435065.

I would add, again, that when the Argentine system is used by a country with greater resources, like Hong Kong, it results in medical care that's much more cost effective than the USA, and it produces better outcomes.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-16-14, 20:21

For the third time, Jackson's posts contradict your assertions. He has praised the health care system in Argentina and proposed it as a possible alternative, if it were politically feasible, for the USA. Please see

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435044&highlight=Argentina#post435044

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=Argentina#post435065.

I would add, again, that when the Argentine system is used by a country with greater resources, like Hong Kong, it results in medical care that's much more cost effective than the USA, and it produces better outcomes.This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.

SteveC

04-16-14, 21:09

Fox News beats all the other cable news sources combined. Any argument here?

Fox News came in 2nd to top major broadcasters in 2013, which means two of the major broadcasters fell below Fox. Any argument here?

Are you trying to tell me with those results only WASP angry old men comprise the only demographic Fox is getting? Come on.

Of course you are going to say Fox is far right, a few of their folks like Hannity are, but the majority are not. When comparing Fox to the NBC, CBS and ABC, who are in the bag for Obama, of course Fox looks anti-Obama to YOU. When the old school national news media is so far left anyone near the center looks extreme in comparison.I didn't dispute the numbers watching Fox News and I didn't claim that only WASP angry old men watch either. I'll repeat what I actually said "To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.

Tiny12

04-16-14, 22:09

"To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.

Esten

04-17-14, 00:06

Esten

04-17-14, 01:12

Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.

Eurostat uses something close to both our U3 and U6 numbers.Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?

Rev BS

04-17-14, 03:49

This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".

SteveC

04-17-14, 07:31

Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.Of course poor people or less educated people shouldn't vote. Shouldn't get health care either. I still say that the Congressional Budget Office is a superior source of data on health care costs compared with Fox News, which is how the conversation with Doppelgänger started.

Punter 127

04-17-14, 08:23

Johnnies-come-lately?

Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?[snip]

No no no, don't confuse us with Democrats!

Liberating the slaves?
I believe Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, was he not? And no I did not vote for him, or Romney.

Woman suffrage? Really?

The "war on women" is a red herring.
“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats -- including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as "Kaiser Wilson."”

Ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, Democrats wrote the Jim Crow laws and they gave birth to the ku klux klan!

“After the end of Reconstruction, which followed from the Compromise of 1877, the new Democratic governments in the South instituted state laws to separate black and white racial groups, submitting African-Americans to de facto second-class citizenship and enforcing white supremacy. Collectively, these state laws were called the Jim Crow system, after the name of a stereotypical 1830s black minstrel show character.”
“The "solid South" was a one-party system under the Democrats.”

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death, the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.
Byrd was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, serving as a recruiter and leader for his chapter.

It was Democrat Governor Orval Faubus who defied the federal government, and tried to stop school integration in Little Rock in 1957 and created the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower that sent Federal troops to Little Rock long before Democrat President John F Kennedy and the National Democrat Party really got on the segregation band wagon.

George Corley Wallace Jr. was a racist Democrat who for years was welcomed with open arms by the National Democrat Party prior to the June 11, 1963 "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door".

Ever wonder why Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Democrat, just read the above three names.

ADA now this is a law that a Democrat had a hand in, but;

“(ADA) is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), authored the bill and was its chief sponsor in the Senate. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.”

“On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. This was intended to give broader protections for disabled workers and "turn back the clock" on court rulings that Congress deemed too restrictive.”

The Democrats are Johnnies-come-lately on most of the above listed issues, yet now you act as if these issues are Democrat accomplishments, and you have the nerve to call others hypocrites. What gall!
The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.

Member #4112

04-17-14, 10:23

Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?

The only thing shifting is you my friend.

I expect nothing less from you Esten than half truths and total misinformation.

Again you just ignore what does not agree with your bias.

The article clearly demonstrated the inclusion of underemployed and ALL the people unemployed was a better metric of the economy. That applies both in Europe and here.

Are you trying to say our economy is doing well with workforce participation rate at historic lows and the true number of people out of work above 10%?

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

You are like the passenger on the Titanic who marvels at the lovely iceberg as it floats by and ignores the water sinking the ship.

Member #4112

04-17-14, 10:53

Jackson

04-17-14, 13:20

The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.Esten, SteveC, and Rev BS are here to ensure that doesn't happen.

Exon, WT69 and Rock Harders stand as evidence of the success of their efforts, although I believe that Rock's ongoing life experiences will result in his eventual recovery.

Thanks,

Jax

Member #4112

04-17-14, 18:22

The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20,1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the USA was too strong."

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Simple, clear and direct.

Tiny12

04-17-14, 20:52

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

So SteveC links to a CBO graph showing Obamacare insurance coverage will "only" cost $157 billion per annum in 2024 instead of $170 billion in 2019 as originally projected. He conveniently ignores the following,

1. The CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of Obamacare.

2. After all the expense and everything else we'll go through, the CBO estimates 30 million people will still have no health care insurance in 2022.

3. The CMS (federal government agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid and the Health Insurance Marketplace) projects health spending will rise from the current level of 17.1% of GDP to 19.9% of GDP by 2022. Please note that no other significant country in the world is currently spending over 12.5% of GDP.

4. Various studies by nonpartisan groups show government funded health care will bankrupt the federal government unless major changes are made. Democrats, considering only short term political goals, have never been willing to make these changes.

Esten is similarly obsessing over U3 unemployment, which at 6.7% is nothing to brag about 5 years after a recession has ended. But there's no need to go over that again. And again and again and again.

Tiny12

04-17-14, 21:03

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".In a fantasy world where anyone could run for president, I would vote for Lee Kuan Yew, Ernesto Zedillo, or Paul Kagame over any white presidential candidate the Democrat or Republican parties are likely to nominate anytime in the foreseeable future.

How many people voted for Obama primarily because he would be the first African American president? How many Democrats automatically assume anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist? Those people, who vote based on a person's skin color, without considering his abilities, experience, or views, are the racists. Or fools. Or both.

SteveC

04-17-14, 21:23

Steve, do you even know how the CBO arrives at it's numbers? From your posts, I doubt it. They are GIVEN the basic assumptions upon which they base their numbers. Since many times those assumptions have nothing to do with the real world their number just don't work. How else do you explain the wide variance in multiple outcomes since ObamaCare was first being considered and after it passed.

Go back and look at the CBO projections for Welfare, off by several hundreds percent.

From your post of the poor and uneducated should not vote, are you trying to totally decimate the Democrats? Without the poor and uneducated they could not get their candidate elected dog catcher.You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.

I'm sure you got the sarcasm in my reply about voting. As for the democrats being decimated without the poor and uneducated votes, I'd say those votes go the Republicans just as often. Just take a look at those illiterate signs at Tea-bagger rallies for example, although it could be argued that they look stupid deliberately as a self-parody.

SteveC

04-17-14, 23:19

Jackson

04-18-14, 00:00

You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten

04-18-14, 00:46

Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

The only thing shifting is you my friend.Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: accuse the other person of what you are guilty of.

Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better. This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because someone employed part-time is not unemployed. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.

Tres3

04-18-14, 01:18

Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: accuse the other person of what you are guilty of.

Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better. This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because someone employed part-time is not unemployed. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.Who cares?? Every intelligent person knows that just about every country's government cooks the books. It matters not whether the government is right or left wing. Give it a rest and move on. There is a saying by accountants, "What do you want the numbers to say?

Tres3.

Tiny12

04-18-14, 01:18

Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobsHahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Esten

04-18-14, 01:31

Witness the tremendous efforts of conservatives to steer the conversation away from Doppel's false statements and from favorable statistics on the US economy.

Let's see if Doppel can post the Eurostat definition of unemployment. If he can't do something so simple, this should be proof positive that he lacks credibility.

Member #4112

04-18-14, 03:42

SteveC

04-18-14, 20:14

Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?

Rc Collins

04-18-14, 20:29

You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama?.

Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama. From dusk to dawn is all Obama's fault. With the exception of Shepherd Smith and on rare occasions Neil Cavuto, they're consistent Obama bashers. Daily accusations are nefariously guised in the formed of a "question," on their website and on TV. Is Obama destroying the country? Is Obama to blame for everything? And of course the answer is yes. With attack dog Hannity leading the charge, O'Reilly and the rest of the primetime crew are totally obsessed with Obama and want him to fail. Every night its all about something Obama is not doing or doing wrong. Watch the reaction of Fox on Obama's reelection night victory, tells you all you need to know about how they feel about him. According to Fox when Bush was in office, you should not criticize him outside our borders especially on war related / foreign policy matters but Obama is afforded no such courtesy as he is regularly second guessed and bashed at will.

Regular erroneous graphics are shown to disparage Obama, especially on the morning show but never an erroneous graphic that would show him or his administration in a positive light. Every error they make is always against Obama. Odd that this is even being debated, any and every objective observer knows they were against him from the start and remains so now. When Obama first took office the Dow was around 6500 and dropped about 200 points and it was Obama's fault. Now the Dow is at an all time high at 16400 plus but you'll never see them give him any credit for that. Bringing on a democrat or liberal guest then shouting him or her down or cutting their microphone while allowing conservatives to talk uninterrupted is not balance or fair, this is old news.

Jackson

04-18-14, 20:35

Jackson

04-18-14, 21:02

Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama.That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " positive from start to finish for or pro Obama"?

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

04-18-14, 21:18

Like CIA operatives who undergoes psychological training to treat pain as pleasure when undergoing interrogation techniques, I have somewhat adjusted to be able to take on Fox News these days without my blood pressure cooking up.

But what I cannot handle is when they go from hard news to a hillbilly song.

Rc Collins

04-18-14, 21:20

That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " positive from start to finish for or pro Obama"?

Thanks,

Jax.Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.

Member #4112

04-19-14, 00:13

I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?Steve, I have not contended the office itself maybe partisan, while I do believe many of the projections made are based on partisan assumptions from sources requesting the data. That said, the CBO's numbers are not the Holy Grail of forecasting and have very frequently been wrong by large margins, totally missing major events while over / under stating surplus and deficient numbers. Regarding Fox vs CBO it is my opinion Fox produces numbers which are more consistently accurate than the CBO.

See the following link from CATO Institute:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-trust-cbos-numbers

Member #4112

04-19-14, 00:17

Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.Collins, what a double standard you folks employ. Bush was SAVAGED by the major news outlets. Fox was critical as well but not to the extent of the liberal / main stream news outlets.

Holder and Obama's cries of mistreatment ring hollow indeed when compared to the statements of congressional members and the media during the Bush years.

Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/02/04/319362.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/5/specter-of-welfare-state-jolts-democrats/?page=all

Rc Collins

04-19-14, 09:37

Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.

Member #4112

04-19-14, 11:41

Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

See the link and draw your own conclusions.

Rc Collins

04-19-14, 12:19

It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

See the link and draw your own conclusions.The yard stick you're using is not mine but your own incorrect interpretation. Relax, go back and read the genesis on the discussion. I answered the question being repeatedly asked which was if Fox was strictly anti-Obama or not, that was it. You are just like the many other partisan talking head throwing every thing else in the pot that has no bearing on the question being asked. Even if everything else you're saying is true and I say it is not, it still would not result in Fox not being Anti-Obama. I have drawn my own conclusion and it is that Fox is Anti-Obama, this is undisputable by any objective standard. I now return you to regular programing.

Esten

04-19-14, 13:35

Let me wrap up this latest exposition of Doppel's dishonesty and depravity. He started with lies about ACA grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, in an effort to discredit Obama. He ran from his lies and he ended with more lies. Here is the Eurostat definition of unemployment, which he falsely claimed he posted. And below, the U3 definition used by BLS. As I posted before, the US and Europe use a standardized ILO definition. There is no part-time employment in either.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm

Unemployed persons are all persons 15 to 74 years of age (16 to 74 years in ES, IT and the UK) who were not employed during the reference week, had actively sought work during the past four weeks and were ready to begin working immediately or within two weeks.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
Thus the US vs. Europe unemployment comparisons in the media are valid apples to apples comparisons, and clearly show the US doing better than Europe. But Doppel can't stand to admit the US is doing better, so he posts lies like the European number is a U6-like number, or claims the media reporting such stories are "biased" in favor of Obama, even when Fox News itself reports these stories:

Unemployment falls sharply in US, rises in Europe
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/03/unemployment-falls-sharply-in-us-rises-in-europe/

All readers can judge for themselves whether Doppel's posts reflect honesty and integrity. Someone asked: Who cares? I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.

Tres3

04-19-14, 14:07

I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.

Tres3.

Esten

04-19-14, 14:23

Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.

Tiny12

04-19-14, 15:25

Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.I would phrase it differently from Tres. The false information falls into the category of Clinton's statement "I did not have sex with that woman.".

The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.

Tiny12

04-19-14, 15:43

WorldTravel69

04-19-14, 15:58

It is all about free speech. They can say whatever they like. Even if it is Not True.

Same as the Politicians running for election or the ballot measures.

The ballots measures really piss me off. They Fraudulently say lies that will eventually make them money.

There should be some checks and balances.

A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.

Tiny12

04-19-14, 16:13

ElAlamoPalermo

04-19-14, 16:21

A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.Fox News is entertainment and positive reinforcement for brainwashed right wingers such as Jackson and his fascist fanboys; it is not serious journalism by an stretch of the imagination. That being said, it is a subscription cable television station so anybody that does not like it can simply change the channel (there is room in the cable lineup for everybody) . As far as Fox News influencing the political process, they hated on Obama and predicted his imminent demise 24/7 prior to the 2012 election; needless to say Obama slaughtered Romney. Although I haven't seen Fox News in a long time, I imagine they are bashing ObamaCare full stop 24/7/365; they can spin their tires all they want to the delight of Jackson and his fascist fanboys because the bottom line remains that ObamaCare is a smashing success and will NEVER be repealed.

ElAlamoPalermo

04-19-14, 16:30

WorldTravel69

04-19-14, 17:15

Every election time when they also have ballot measures to vote on, most times there is a measure that you know or think you know; because it is so confusing to understand, that they are lying about.

The Alaskan pipeline is one that comes to mind. They said the gas price would go down when it is built. It did not go down. The first thing they did was to sell the gas to Japan or was it China.

They lied to us to make money.

That was Fraud.

In time they did put a stop to that practice or so that is what they tell us.

Kind of like the same shit they are trying to sell us about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Last year the United States produced more gas than they ever have in the past. The prices have not gone down.
Chevron is selling their regular gas in my area of California for $4.29.
They say they are switching from winter gas to summer gas. What a crock of shit that is.

What do you mean by ballot measures and checks and balances?

WorldTravel69

04-20-14, 12:12

Sounds like Rush is out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1293043/-Rush-Limbaugh-Is-In-Ruins-Bad-News-Coming-From-Every-Direction-Including-The-Right?detail=email

Member #4112

04-20-14, 17:39

ESTEN DECLARES A BET.

ESTEN DECLARES ALL OPPOSING ARGUMENTS NULL AND VOID.

ESTEN DELCARES HIMSELF THE WINNER.

THE BET:

#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.
HERE WAS MY RESPONSE ON #1.

#1 Total misinformation as always.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies.

So I guess it's ok for you to assert there is a grandfathered clause in ObamaCare but due to Obama's regulations restricting whose plan can qualify for that status you would have to be a one horned, one eyed, flying purple people eater. Not many qualifying for that one.

Check out the link it explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"!

#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.HERE IS MY RESPONSE ON #2.

As far as US U6 being closer to European unemployment figures, the short answer the Europeans do a better job of including some portions of those we count under U6 in their base calculation for unemployment, ie long term unemployed. Here is the link to Eurostat's methodology.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm

I also noticed you quoted the International Labor Organization, would that be " the UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights", by the way I took that little quote right off the web site!

Point of fact our BLS, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as Statistical Office of the European Communities-Eurostat, all adjust international data on unemployed using a common conceptual basis in an attempt to "standardize "or "harmonize" the data. The US, Europe, and other countries don't use the same methodologies regarding what they include or disallow to calculate unemployment as you attempted to falsely infer. If everyone used the identical calculations methods and perimeters there would be no need for this standardization or harmonization now would there?

At the end of the day Esten you only deal in half-truths or outright deception.

Like Bill Clinton:

"I did not have sex with that woman" attempting to infer a blow job is not sex, good luck with that.

Or during his deposition:

"That depends on the what the definition of "is", is".

That's you Esten, the Artful Dodger.

Excellent article on why U6 not U3 should be used to gauge the economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/

Excellent article on why U3 is off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

Tres3

04-20-14, 20:16

Before getting all worked up, on the right and left, please examine the numbers I present as reasonable approximations only, and give me credit for stating from the outset that these numbers are only reasonable approximations.

We have over 325 million people living in the USA. We do not know the exact number, but let us say the there are 75 million medicare and medicaid recipients. That leaves 250 million people who need health insurance not provided by the government. Approximately 50% of those people, or 125 million, are uninsured. The Administration says that over 7 million people signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the final number will be 8 million, AND that all eight million have paid their premiums, AND that all 8 million are newly insured that did not have health insurance before ACA. The administration said PEOPLE, not HOUSEHOLDS signed up; however, I will give them further benefit of the doubt and say that they meant households. If the average household is a generous 6 persons, that means that 48 million people are now insured who previously were not.

That is less than half of the 125 million uninsured population of the USA. Even if the medicare and medicaid component is increased, we still do not have universal healthcare in the USA. I believe that everyone who feels ill should be able to see a doctor, but I also believe that ACA is not the answer. All parties should be ashamed.

Theodore Roosevelt tried for universal healthcare, and failed. Virtually every president who came after him also tried and failed because the special interests who run the USA did not want universal healthcare. They want special interest healthcare, and ACA gives them what they want. If the nation had not been distracted by the Viet Nam War, I seriously doubt that medicare would be the law of the land. My father was a medical doctor, and he said that "socialized medicine", aka medicare, doubled his income.

Tres3.

Punter 127

04-21-14, 13:10

Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know that beginning with FDR's New Deal and finalizing with Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights programs the placement on the political spectrum of the two main "catch all" political parties in the USA switched places (both are right of center, currently the Republicans are slightly further right than the Democrats).I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your leftwing (brainwashing) education.

"100 level comparative politics class" I must have taken that before progressive liberal professors started teaching planting "new history" into wannabe elitist like you. But “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience”. LOL.

I can't believe you would even mention racist like FDR and LBJ. For those of you who studied "New History" rather the Real History and for the benefit of any lurking LIV, you should know FDR gave us Executive Order 9066 which created internment camps for Japanese Americans in 1942. A situation Ronald Reagan had to clean up in 1988 with the Civil Liberties Act.

LBJ was a war mongering Dixiecrat segregationist who embraced the civil rights issue only after he realized the value of the "Black Vote".

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”-LBJ"The Party-switching myth is something we hear from Democrats, but nobody ever has a clear point or example in history for where it occurs. Ever since the birth of the Republican party in 1854, Republicans were strong supporters of abolition." Meanwhile, Democrats had KKK members in Congress, and many Democrats not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but also gave quite a lengthy filibuster. Republicans championed the Constitutional amendments ending slavery, giving African-Americans the right to vote, as well as securing that right. Civil Rights legislation as well as anti-lynching laws, and anti-poll taxes were pushed through by Republicans to ensure this, while Democrats fought them tooth and nail".

Prior to President Kennedy's civil rights speech of June 11,1963, (in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public,) he voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did many other Democrats. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King".

The New Deal? Japanese Americans probably refer to the "Raw Deal" and if you want to see some results of Johnson's Great Society just look no farther than Detroit City, a city in ruins which hasn't had a Republican mayor in 50 years.

Political parties switching places is myth, Democrats would have us believe they sprinkled on a little Holy Water and cleansed themselves of their racist history. Today Democrats use drug pusher tactics to addict people to government assistant. But there is nothing in the Republican Parties history or platform that puts them anywhere even remotely close to the racist level of the Democrat Party.

You can't just change your platform and erase your history.

I see seven rockets fired from the Gaza Strip just landed in southern Israel during the Jewish Passover holiday on Monday.

Perhaps you'd like tell us your opinion on Israel and the Jews now,...or maybe not?

Rockin Bob

04-22-14, 01:17

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your leftwing (brainwashing) education.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”-LBJ

(Sorry to cut and paste, couldn't get the Reply with Quote to work for some reason)

Punter, I read that quote and just had to Google it and find the source. Came upon this article:

http://w-dervish.blogspot.com.ar/2014/01/highly-dubious-lbj-quote-what-it-says.html

Here's some excerpts, you can read the whole thing yourself. ("My Commentary" refers to the author of the article)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

What follows is from hour 1 of the same Thom Hartmann broadcast quoted above, this time beginning at the 37:14 mark...

Caller: ...the woman who gave a quote from LBJ; saying that the Democratic Party was going to have, quote, the "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years...". ... That quote can be found all over the internet on Rightwing blogs, and it can be traced back to one book by a very Rightwing author, Ronald Kessler, and it's in a book called Inside the White House. And [thequote] has never been corroborated by anyone else. He is the only person who ever alleged that LBJ said that, that I can find.

TH: To say that trying to eliminate poverty in the United States, when the vast majority of people in poverty in the United States were [andare] White, was going to, somehow win the Democratic Party the Black vote for 200 years; that doesn't make any sense that LBJ would say such a thing... it's not how he spoke; it's not how he thought; and it certainly wasn't his motivation. But it has clearly brainwashed some young Conservatives. Thanks for sharing that with us.

My Commentary: Those brainwashed include some older Libertarians as well (as illustrated by the excerpt from Mr. LB's blog above, as well as this comment from the blog of Ayn Rand devotee Rational Nation). And Wikipedia notes that Mr. Kessler is also the author of a 2004 book titled "A Matter of Character" which is "an admiring look at George W. Bush's presidency". That is reason enough to strongly suspect that the LBJ quote is not accurate.
While I can not say for sure if Mr. Kessler is the only source for this quote, LBJ's prior actions while in the Senate very much contradict the idea that LBJ was a racist who signed Civil Rights legislation because it would help Democrats trick African Americans into voting Democratic. The following book quote via an article on the Media Matters website...

LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro: In the Summer of 1957....

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, did LBJ really say that? Well, nobody supplies a source other than this Kessler fellow. But I have to disagree with the author's contention that just because Kessler wrote an admiring look at the Bush presidency makes the quote suspect, and reading the Kessler bio on Wikipedia makes me question the contention he is very rightwing author like the caller suggests. So I don't know if LBJ truly said it, and I wouldn't feel I could present it as fact.

But I can easily believe what the caller says about it being all over the internet on right wing blogs. Probably the blogs where they love name calling and specialize in belittling people. Let me see if I can do that:

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your rightwing (brainwashing) education.

Pretty good, huh Punter?

Rockin Bob

04-22-14, 01:23

I should mention there is a great LBJ quote which I not only believe to be true but I can give you a source:

Of the Latin American regional group, the Organization of American States, LBJ said on an occasion when he knew his words would be repeated, "It couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel." The OAS had been notoriously indecisive and ineffective, but one OAS diplomat remarked that it "made us think that your President does not consider us too important.".

Source: Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson, by Eric F. Goldman, p .382 , Mar 1, 1974.

Don B

04-22-14, 01:29

Punter 127

04-22-14, 03:36

So, did LBJ really say that? Well, nobody supplies a source other than this Kessler fellow. But I have to disagree with the author's contention that just because Kessler wrote an admiring look at the Bush presidency makes the quote suspect, and reading the Kessler bio on Wikipedia makes me question the contention he is very rightwing author like the caller suggests. So I don't know if LBJ truly said it, and I wouldn't feel I could present it as fact. Bob the quote was supposedly made in 1957 when LBJ flipped on his Dixiecrat segregationist buddies. (I did try to add that to the post but the edit button only gave me a blank text box) The book author you speak of is the source and to my knowledge it has not been disproved. However the quote is only a small part of my post, so I assume you consider the rest of the post to be spot on. The readers can decide if the LBJ quote fits or not, if I could edit I would just take it out because it's really irrelevant and doesn't change the racist history of the Democrat party.

But I can easily believe what the caller says about it being all over the internet on right wing blogs. Probably the blogs where they love name calling and specialize in belittling people. Let me see if I can do that:

I'm glad you enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you could comprehend, considering your rightwing (brainwashing) education.

Pretty good, huh Punter?Interesting that you want to single out one sentence and call me out for “name calling and belittling people”. Do you read the fucking forum? Where was you when the quotes below were made? Or maybe it's ok for a lefty to “name call and belittle people” in your book?

Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know[snip]

Fox News is entertainment and positive reinforcement for brainwashed right wingers such as Jackson and his fascist fanboys; [snip]

Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) [snip]

Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation.[snip] Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite [snip]

The fact that you climbed up my ass while ignoring ElAlamoPalermo remarks cast a bit of a shadow on your integrity Bob, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

Rock on Bob.

Rockin Bob

04-22-14, 15:14

Bob the quote was supposedly made in 1957 when LBJ flipped on his Dixiecrat segregationist buddies. (I did try to add that to the post but the edit button only gave me a blank text box) The book author you speak of is the source and to my knowledge it has not been disproved. However the quote is only a small part of my post, so I assume you consider the rest of the post to be spot on. The readers can decide if the LBJ quote fits or not, if I could edit I would just take it out because it's really irrelevant and doesn't change the racist history of the Democrat party.First, I got to say I my attempt to edit my post gave me a blank text box as well, and now I still don't get anything when I click on reply with quote. Tried a different browser, same result! Jackson! What's up with that!

Second, just because I take issue with one part of your post does not mean I agree with all the rest of it. It is an assumption on your part, and not logically arrived at.

Third, "it's just a small part of my post." Please. Your honor, yes that's a lie but it's the only one in my entire testimony!

Fourth, you say the quote was "supposedly made" in 1957. OK, fine, so maybe it was more likely he said it, if he said it early on. But what does that prove? The point is, there is no record of him having said it, no transcript of a tape recording or speech, nothing. It would be nice to actually read Kessler's book to find out more about where he got the quote. And how he managed to get it all down word for word.

I don't care about the history of the demographic party. My point is this: you claim that liberals (whatever that means) are "brainwashed." People who are brainwashed are people who believe things that are unsubstantiated, who believe that since the same thing is repeated in many places by many people it must be true. And then they go and present their beliefs as though they were facts. Assumptions, suppositions, allegations, beliefs strongly held or otherwise, are not facts.

The fact that you climbed up my ass while ignoring ElAlamoPalermo remarks cast a bit of a shadow on your integrity Bob, but I can't say that I'm surprised.No, the shadow is on your integrity. I don't care what ElAlamoPalermo says, he's not part of the current discussion. The point is that in one particular instance you accuse others of being brainwashed. I'm talking about you, one particular post.

I'm not climbing up your ass, I'm just throwing your own words back at you about brainwashing after I have given a specific example of how you exhibit the behavior of someone who is brainwashed. You repeat unsubstantiated quotes, you present them as facts to us and to yourself.

What would you like me to do? Tell ElAlamoPalermo that if he doesn't tone down his remarks I'm going to kick his scrawny liberal ass from Recoleta to Palermo and back again?

Jackson

04-22-14, 21:31

Hey Jax, when you get healthcare in Argentina, do you pay 100% of the costs?Yes. I have for years a policy with private hospital system here in Argentina. I pay my entire premium without benefiting from any line item subsidy. Of course Rock will argue that some of the hospital's employees rode to work on subsidized public transportation, or that some of the medical staff was educated at subsidized public universities, etc. etc., but I am not a net beneficiary of these "trickledown subsidies".

The only way to make Esten leave is to ignore him. He relishes the anti-Esten posts, and thrives on stirring up the anti-Esten sentiment among the more conservative posters on this board. That is one of the reasons that he does not care about separating fact from fiction.

Tres3.Esten will not leave this forum until the DNC appoints his replacement.

Sounds like Rush is out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1293043/-Rush-Limbaugh-Is-In-Ruins-Bad-News-Coming-From-Every-Direction-Including-The-Right?detail=emailAll that DailyKooks story does is document the Left's intolerance for any expression of opposing views, in this case by intimidating and attacking Rush Limbaugh's advertisers.

Thanks,

Jax

Punter 127

04-23-14, 02:28

Attacking the Messenger, Ignoring the Message, right Bob?

I'm not climbing up your ass, I'm just throwing your own words back at you about brainwashing after I have given a specific example of how you exhibit the behavior of someone who is brainwashed. You repeat unsubstantiated quotes, you present them as facts to us and to yourself. First I believe there is only one quote in question here, the other quote you mentioned ("niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years...") was not in my post. The words you were “throwing back” were a reply to ElAlamopalermo and were directed at him, they had nothing to do with you, and I'm sorry if it offended you, but if the shoe fits feel free to wear it.

Btw do you really think ElAlamopalermo needs you to fight his battles? Not on your best day my friend!

Would you have liked it better if I written the sentence this way;

I'm glad you ElAlamopalermo enjoyed the history lesson, I struggled to get down to a level I felt you ElAlamopalermo could comprehend, considering your ElAlamopalermo leftwing (brainwashing) education. How's that work for you Rockin Bob? Pretty good, huh Bob?

I don't care about the history of the demographic party. My point is this: you claim that liberals (whatever that means) are "brainwashed." [snip]
Others do care about the history of the party, and I never said “liberals (all) are brainwashed”, I actually think liberalism is a sickness.

Fourth, you say the quote was "supposedly made" in 1957. OK, fine, so maybe it was more likely he said it, if he said it early on. But what does that prove?[snip]Are you admitting that “early on” LBJ was a racist? You know where the quote came from and if it's true it proves LBJ made racist remarks, and it suggest that he only changed his stance to get the black vote. Did he ever do anything for any other minority? I can't prove the quote is gospel and you can't prove it's wrong, but I can tell you this, on this forum and others people are accused of being racist both directly and implied just because they disagree with Obama's policies. Now I really don't have a problem with you questioning the quote and I don't have problem with you saying you don't believe it, but it looks to me like you are attacking the messenger, and ignoring the message. I guess if that's all you got you go with it, right Bob?

Oh btw the message I was trying to get across and that you are trying to move us away from is the fact that the Democrat Party has a racist history and the Republican Party does not. That's the bottom line.

What would you like me to do? Tell ElAlamopalermo that if he doesn't tone down his remarks I'm going to kick his scrawny liberal ass from Recoleta to Palermo and back again? I would never suggest violence Bob and you'd have to grow a pair first anyway, hell in your case I wouldn't suggest you cross the street on a windy day unless you have a kite string tied to your ass.

However if you can drink enough courage to have a go at ElAlamopalermo let me know and I'll buy a ticket for that show. lol

What I really would like you to do is be fair and treat everybody the same, but I understand your fear of ElAlamopalermo. What you really should do now is man up and admit you went about this all wrong and apologize, but I don't think you got the stones for that either.

I stand by my post, and I'm pretty much finished arguing with you, so you can have the last word...knock yourself out, please!