HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Moore and Krugman piss on...

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:11 AM

 

Moore and Krugman piss on the ACA decision

I know that our side is not used to victories and so we're not quite sure how to respond when we get one out of the blue. For some of us, the first inclination is to point out just how weak the Obama law actually is, that it doesn't provide true universal health care (26 million will STILL be uninsured), and that it leaves control of the system in the hands of the vultures, otherwise known as the health insurance companies. The individual mandate was a huge gift to the private insurance companies, guaranteeing them billions more from millions of new customers. And many of the key provisions of this law don't even take effect until 2014 – and if the Republicans win in November, you can kiss all of that goodbye.

So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/more-victory-decision-today-was-mandate-us-act

So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=1

Should they be admonished or maybe boycotted for having introduced critiques of the ACA, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the "win"?

Quite frankly, other than the needed benefits it represents to millions, I think the biggest win will be the inevitable softening of the scary visage -- kind of a process like then Portrait of Dorian Gray in reverse -- of the "socialist" bogeyman many hold in their tiny and corrupted brains as painted by their rightwing masters. Much as the rightwingnuts have successfully managed to to create Bizarro World-like thinking in their minions -- particularly in the last decade -- where failure is success, etc, as has been noted by some of us since at least the stimulus days, they don't fear the failure of the ACA, they fear its real and potential successes, and the baby step it represents towards single payer because of the stopgap effort it is widely seen as.

We'll have to wait and see given the medicaid thing, how many will inevitably be left out in the insurance cold, which makes it at best a partial success in terms of the completion of the goal for all to be covered. That goal will be easier to achieve politically once more of the rightwingers discover that the ACA doesn't spell socialism doom, reversing their dread and the word "doom" into a "mood" more conducive for acceptance to further travel down the socialism road.

As already argued, the ground already appears to be quite fertile http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/ leaving only a need for more cultivation which the ACA could represent the figurative plow for.

Acknowledgement of and complaints about the flaws of the ACA are as important as its human misery-relieving benefits, because that's the path to providing more.

Keep pissing Mike and Paul.

144 replies, 16911 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 144 replies Author Time Post
Reply Moore and Krugman piss on the ACA decision (Original post)
stupidicus Jun 2012 OP
ananda Jun 2012 #1
stupidicus Jul 2012 #66
spanone Jun 2012 #2
stupidicus Jul 2012 #67
kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #3
stupidicus Jul 2012 #68
Zalatix Jun 2012 #4
ProSense Jun 2012 #6
Zalatix Jun 2012 #25
SidDithers Jun 2012 #49
Zalatix Jun 2012 #53
patrice Jul 2012 #106
Zalatix Jul 2012 #120
patrice Jul 2012 #122
patrice Jul 2012 #101
stupidicus Jul 2012 #69
mmonk Jun 2012 #5
Zalatix Jun 2012 #8
ProSense Jun 2012 #10
Zalatix Jun 2012 #13
ProSense Jun 2012 #17
Zalatix Jun 2012 #22
ProSense Jun 2012 #28
Zalatix Jun 2012 #34
ProSense Jun 2012 #38
boxman15 Jun 2012 #32
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #63
snooper2 Jun 2012 #11
Zalatix Jun 2012 #12
snooper2 Jun 2012 #14
Zalatix Jun 2012 #19
ProSense Jun 2012 #15
Zalatix Jun 2012 #21
ProSense Jun 2012 #24
Zalatix Jun 2012 #26
ProSense Jun 2012 #27
Zalatix Jun 2012 #30
ProSense Jun 2012 #42
Zalatix Jun 2012 #43
ProSense Jun 2012 #48
Zalatix Jun 2012 #52
ProSense Jun 2012 #57
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #60
patrice Jul 2012 #114
RufusTFirefly Jun 2012 #20
Zalatix Jun 2012 #44
patrice Jul 2012 #109
Zalatix Jul 2012 #119
patrice Jul 2012 #123
Skittles Jul 2012 #103
stupidicus Jul 2012 #70
JHB Jun 2012 #7
stupidicus Jul 2012 #71
JHB Jul 2012 #100
stupidicus Jul 2012 #136
hifiguy Jun 2012 #9
deutsey Jun 2012 #45
stupidicus Jul 2012 #72
CleanLucre Jun 2012 #16
stupidicus Jul 2012 #73
fredamae Jun 2012 #18
Hoyt Jun 2012 #29
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #33
fredamae Jul 2012 #128
TBF Jun 2012 #37
fredamae Jun 2012 #65
stupidicus Jul 2012 #74
joshcryer Jul 2012 #83
PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #127
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #23
stupidicus Jul 2012 #75
Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #31
stupidicus Jul 2012 #76
Lydia Leftcoast Jun 2012 #35
stupidicus Jul 2012 #77
fishwax Jun 2012 #36
stupidicus Jul 2012 #78
bluedigger Jun 2012 #39
Taverner Jun 2012 #47
RufusTFirefly Jun 2012 #50
stupidicus Jul 2012 #80
bluedigger Jul 2012 #98
stupidicus Jul 2012 #110
bluedigger Jul 2012 #116
stupidicus Jul 2012 #133
Chisox08 Jun 2012 #40
stupidicus Jul 2012 #82
Progressive dog Jun 2012 #41
stupidicus Jul 2012 #84
movonne Jul 2012 #117
Taverner Jun 2012 #46
RufusTFirefly Jun 2012 #51
stupidicus Jul 2012 #85
The Magistrate Jun 2012 #54
SidDithers Jun 2012 #59
stupidicus Jul 2012 #86
patrice Jul 2012 #112
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #113
stupidicus Jul 2012 #138
The Magistrate Jul 2012 #135
stupidicus Jul 2012 #139
The Magistrate Jul 2012 #141
stupidicus Jul 2012 #143
lame54 Jun 2012 #55
stupidicus Jul 2012 #87
lame54 Jul 2012 #129
stupidicus Jul 2012 #131
lame54 Jul 2012 #142
stupidicus Jul 2012 #144
JNelson6563 Jun 2012 #56
stupidicus Jul 2012 #88
Kahuna Jun 2012 #58
stupidicus Jul 2012 #89
Zen Democrat Jun 2012 #61
stupidicus Jul 2012 #90
enlightenment Jul 2012 #118
dionysus Jun 2012 #62
stupidicus Jul 2012 #92
Logical Jun 2012 #64
stupidicus Jul 2012 #93
Logical Jul 2012 #105
stupidicus Jul 2012 #111
Logical Jul 2012 #115
stupidicus Jul 2012 #134
elleng Jul 2012 #79
stupidicus Jul 2012 #94
elleng Jul 2012 #97
stupidicus Jul 2012 #104
joshcryer Jul 2012 #81
stupidicus Jul 2012 #96
KG Jul 2012 #91
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #95
stupidicus Jul 2012 #99
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #107
stupidicus Jul 2012 #121
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #126
stupidicus Jul 2012 #130
Skittles Jul 2012 #102
Logical Jul 2012 #108
CaliforniaPeggy Jul 2012 #124
ErikJ Jul 2012 #125
stupidicus Jul 2012 #132
Marrah_G Jul 2012 #137
stupidicus Jul 2012 #140

Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:13 AM

1. Well, that's a special brand of "piss" since..

.. they are both right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:03 PM

66. as many around here no doubt were

 

but subsequently got charged with pissing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:13 AM

2. read again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:04 PM

67. why?

 

I'm thoroughly familiar with what everybody wrote and why, including me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM

3. There's nothing "Socialist" about having to tithe to insurance corporations

unless you meant National Socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:05 PM

68. lol

 

yep, I'm sure that's the condition insurance companies would like to see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM

4. I can't wait to see people scream at Moore and Krugman.

 

A thousand people vs those two = a fair fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:19 AM

6. Why

"I can't wait to see people scream at Moore and Krugman."

...because some on the left are becoming more like RWingers using Rovian tactics?

Moore (to finish the sentence in the OP):


So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today's court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that's why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! They know what we all know — that the path of history has been, and will continue to move toward the basic human right that all people are entitled to see a doctor and NOT have to worry about losing their home because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. Those days are over, or will be soon, and that is where civilization is headed. It's not headed back to the days of Oliver Twist. Today's victory is momentum, it's forward motion, and we WILL have true universal health care in this country in the not too distant future.

So take some time tonight to celebrate; this is a victory for the people. Actually, more than a victory, it is a mandate that all of us must now make sure that a second-term Obama continues to move the ball down the field, toward a system like they have in every other First World country on the planet. He simply has to improve Medicare and then expand it to every citizen in the country. The countries that do this, their people live an average of two to four years longer than we do. Is there a reason anyone doesn't want an extra four years of their lives? Or that our babies would have a better chance of surviving their first year like they do in the 48 countries that have a better infant mortality rate than we do? Exactly who is opposed to this? You'd have to be a bit…crazy.


Krugman:

So the Supreme Court — defying many expectations — upheld the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. There will, no doubt, be many headlines declaring this a big victory for President Obama, which it is. But the real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.

How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.

<...>

But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.

Join the celebration!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM

25. 99.99% of the ACA is good. But they both singled out the individual mandate as the flaw in the law.

 

And the OP actually cited where they did so.

Let me guess here - you're not understanding the point that the ACA is 99.99% win, with the sole failure being the individual mandate? Or is this an issue of denial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:11 AM

49. Wait. So you're endlessly posting criticism of ACA...

because you disagree with 0.01% of it?

Really?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #49)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:17 AM

53. I have been posting criticism not of the entire ACA, but rather the individual mandate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:51 PM

106. The mandate is not the 1% way. It is a mandate in context with a MLR on the premium dollar that cuts

Ins Co profits by as much as 50% and mandates rebates on those premium dollars that do not meet the 85% criteria.

It is a mandate accompanied by a NEW consumer tool (The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, implemented by the Patient Protection part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) for demanding from Ins Co the kind of coverage rates and services that the market previously had NO incentive to offer.

It is a mandate that is on those who CAN buy insurance, but refuse to, and yet benefit not only from everyone else having hc insurance, but also from the fact that, even though they didn't pay, they have access to the systems if/when they ever need it, which is highly likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #106)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:23 AM

120. I don't want the ACA to fail. I am hoping the new consumer tools work as intended.

 

But I fear the danger of existing loopholes, new donut holes and the ever-present GOP's willingness to chip away at this law by doing nasty shit like holding the whole national budget hostage until they get the incremental-steps-backward changes they demand.

See: the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #120)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:48 AM

122. Me too. And, yes, we shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of the struggle, but this is it. What

else is there to do? We cannot stop. We need to figure out how to avoid issue fatigue, and/or recover from it, and keep up the fight no matter what happens. What does not defeat us will make us stronger and the challenges can help the talent to rise to the top to lead the fight. We just need to never give up. I believe the people of this country are with us, not the Repukes. I, for one, have been wondering what we have that could match the political activities of churches on the issues; I believe the answer to that question, given the downward pressure on American wages and benefits, is Labor in general and Unions in particular. They could be the source of the sustenance, brother-and-sister-hood, that we will need to get us through this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:44 PM

101. The Constitutionality of the mandate is ground to stand on for the constitutionality of Single Payer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:12 PM

69. indeed

 

I often remind my rightwingnut adversaries that number of rightwingnuts) times zero(what they generally are) still equals zero.

I was merely having a hard time understanding and coming to grips with the idea I see argued on a variety of issues around here, that dissent/criticism -- like acknowledging the flaws in the ACA, even in the wake of the "victory" -- is some kinda "pissing in the punch bowl" indicative of behavior and attitudes unbecoming a dedicated lefty/lib.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:17 AM

5. Seriously, that is what you got out of what they said?

Maybe they should have said the ACA is god without a flaw and then they would not have been "pissing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:20 AM

8. They both dissed the individual mandate. Most of the DU supports the mandate. VEHEMENTLY.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:25 AM

10. Wrong

"They both dissed the individual mandate. Most of the DU supports the mandate. VEHEMENTLY."

Krugman is a strong supporter of the mandate, which is why he supported Hillary.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/naked-blackmail/



<...>

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM

13. Looks like Krugman CHANGED his point of view.

 

It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch.


There's no way you can deem this NOT to be in contradiction with the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:33 AM

17. Not at all. Still supports a mandate. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:35 AM

22. You're wrong again. The quote shows it.

 

Have a nice day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM

28. Just so

you can read it again:

"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

Get it? It doesn't work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM

34. Ah, I see what the problem here is.

 

You don't know what Krugman was saying when he said

it is, after all, originally a Republican plan,

That's called an about-face on his previous remarks. Krugman is, unlike others, known to back off a position he finds to be wrong (such as free trade).

The only Republican part of this plan is the individual mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:54 AM

38. I see the problem too: denial! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:49 AM

32. No. What he's saying is that it's not the best way to cover people, but you need to have it

if there's no single payer system. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Just because he brings up that it's a formerly Republican idea and its somewhat flawed doesn't mean he's against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:38 PM

63. I agree with that quote and think that you are stretching it

 

wayyy to far to paint Moore and Krugman as the bad guys here. Both side that this was a victory for most Americans, but not perfect.

I agree with Pro on this, which doesnt happen often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:28 AM

11. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

 

You haven't in multiple threads now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:30 AM

12. I'm not wrong. So not just no, but HELL NO.

 

Have I made my point perfectly clear here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:32 AM

14. Sure, even in the face of facts you stand by your wrong headed opinions

 

I guess there's something to be said about standing by your convictions LOL...

But the Earth is still round

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM

19. What facts? You mean your imagination?

 

It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch.


Anyone with a better than two year old understanding of English must interpret this as a SLAM on the individual mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:32 AM

15. You were

"I'm not wrong. So not just no, but HELL NO."

...wrong about Krugman and the mandate, but apparently this victory is making you unhappy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:35 AM

21. I actually cited where I was correct about Krugman. Sorry, you're wrong again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM

24. Actually,

"I actually cited where I was correct about Krugman. Sorry, you're wrong again."

...no. You cited where Krugman mentioned that it was "originally a Republican plan" (RomneyCare) and that it wouldn't be the system anyone designed from scratch:

So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

He says nothing about the mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:41 AM

26. What the hell else do you think he is referring to besides the individual mandate?

 

it is, after all, originally a Republican plan,

That is referring to the individual mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:44 AM

27. RomneyCare, but

I don't think you're being serious.

I think you're pissed and looking for a hero to support your pissing on a victory.

It's not Krugman, he is a strong supporter of the mandate.

What do you think he means by:

"But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society. "

Does that make you sad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM

30. I'm dead serious as a heart attack here.

 

However if you are seriously convincing yourself that "it is, after all, originally a Republican plan" is NOT addressing the individual mandate, then you are living in denial. There is nothing else in the ACA that was a Republican plan except the individual mandate.

You're desperately grasping at straws now.

And
"But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society. "
means exactly what I said - 99.99% of the ACA law is wonderful. The mandate is that cancerous .01% that could rise up and devastate the whole law.

BTW you're running out of straws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:04 AM

42. Are you

"There is nothing else in the ACA that was a Republican plan except the individual mandate."

...saying that you're extremely upset about a victory for a plan that's 99 percent Democratic and one percent Republican, a provision that will affect about one percent of Americans (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877072)?

Krugman stated specifically:"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

He didn't say he didn't like it or loved it: He said "reform doesn’t work without a mandate."

Get it? It doesn't work!

Some more quotes from Krugman when the law originally passed.

"Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/


<...>

...It seems the Democrats have done it. The Senate version of health reform will become law, with an improved version coming through reconciliation. This is, of course, a political victory for Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America's soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/22/healthcare-reform-obama-victory-americans


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:07 AM

43. I'm happy with 99.99% of the Affordable Care Act. I am unhappy with 0.01%.

 

And you've posted those old quotes several times now.

None of that changes the fact that when Krugman laments
it is, after all, originally a Republican plan,


There is only one part of the ACA that is originally a Republican plan: the individual mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #43)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:11 AM

48. Guess what:

None of that changes the fact that when Krugman laments

it is, after all, originally a Republican plan,


There is only one part of the ACA that is originally a Republican plan: the individual mandate.

Nothing you post changes the fact that Krugman likes the "Republican plan":

it is, after all, originally a Republican plan... But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

Thanks President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:16 AM

52. LOL at all that denial you're selling.

 

Krugman said " It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan"

The IMPERFECTION he is referring to is the individual mandate.

Or do you have an idea as to what else he's referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:24 AM

57. Question:

Did Krugman say this:

"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:02 PM

60. Krugman, March 2012:

Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has.

There are at least two ways to address this reality — which is, by the way, very much an issue involving interstate commerce, and hence a valid federal concern. One is to tax everyone — healthy and sick alike — and use the money raised to provide health coverage. That’s what Medicare and Medicaid do. The other is to require that everyone buy insurance, while aiding those for whom this is a financial hardship.

Are these fundamentally different approaches? Is requiring that people pay a tax that finances health coverage O.K., while requiring that they purchase insurance is unconstitutional? It’s hard to see why — and it’s not just those of us without legal training who find the distinction strange. Here’s what Charles Fried — who was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general — said in a recent interview with The Washington Post: “I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/krugman-broccoli-and-bad-faith.html


Yes, he'd prefer medicare-for-all; but you're wrong if you think that medicare-for-all could just be a different 0.01% of the ACA. It's effectively replacing health care insurers, and it takes a lot to set up such a system. Krugman has always known, and said, that a mandate is necessary for an insurance system that covers pre-existing conditions, and he is, and has been, realistic enough to know that a single payer system wasn't going to get passed in the next few years. He has not changed his position on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #60)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:19 PM

114. Thank You! "...and it takes a lot to set up such a system." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM

20. I VEHEMENTLY support paying huge sums to private insurance corporations.

Yeah, right.

With Medicare, the overhead is something like 3 percent.
With private insurance, it's currently between 20 percent and 30 percent.
The ACA will bring that down to between 15 and 20 percent depending on whether the insurance is group or individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:08 AM

44. 15 and 20% is too much. 3% is good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #44)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:56 PM

109. Everyone agrees about that. The REAL questions are about how to get there with a system that

CAN survive and won't create the onus of toooooooooooooooooo much job loss too quickly amongst Ins Co, thus creating any more permanent political adversaries than absolutely necessary, plus too much stress on hc providers by forcing fees for service down too fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #109)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:20 AM

119. Theoretically, moving the cost of health care off of employers, under certain circumstances

 

SHOULD create more job growth.

In theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #119)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:53 AM

123. Dealing with the Tax Code could also result in NEW employers, entrepreneurs, and some of those might

even be interested in new, more efficient, business models. Employee participation in ownership could provide some of the profit margin that entrepreneurs are going to need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:46 PM

103. wrong wrong WRONG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:15 PM

70. nope

 

it was a jab at all the "purists" around here that think any discussion or pointing out of flaws in the ACA on the day of glorious "victory" was a pissing in the DU punchbowl.

and of course, an introduction to my own commentary on the matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:19 AM

7. Facts = pissing?

The ACA has flaws, but it is what could finally be passed in the face of the Republican blockade.

If you don't keep reminding people that it has flaws, and that mainly thanks to the Republicans, when those flaws make themselves felt in in a clear way the republicans will say "see, it doesn't work" and push to eliminate it entirely.

The rest of us are hoping for the "gradual improvement" that was talked about when trying to get it passed. That's not going to happen if the only people talking about its problems are the ones bent on elimination, not reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:16 PM

71. sometimes

 

in my experiences

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #71)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:38 PM

100. Not one of those times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #100)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:14 PM

136. it never is

 

but it is often characterized as "pissing" regardless of the intent behind stating of "facts"

I'm not gonna explain myself or this post in its entirety here again, but suffice it to say the subject line was hyperbole, and the point was to not the fact that it should be okay to criticize the policy pursuits and results of our dem leadership without fear of being charged as something tantamount to in some measure, traitors to the general cause.

For example, if I wanna criticize BHO's "kill list", I should be able to do so without reading about how I'm really just trying to undermine his reelection chances, etc. Every criticism like that shouldn't need to be accompanied by extensive qualifications to establish my general support and intent to vote for him anyway, much like K&M did in supporting the victory over the ruling despite having a relatively low regard for the ACA itself. I and many here will do the same for BHO's victory should it occur in Nov, despite having a pretty low regard for many of his policies. It's all about wishing and trying to make him better, just as acknowledging and complaining about the inadequacies of the ACA seek the same goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:23 AM

9. Moore and Krugman are right on the money.

 

The ACA is flawed, to be sure. They say so. Krugman also makes it clear that it's a first step down a long road.

Geez louise.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:08 AM

45. Moore also sees it as a step in the right direction despite its flaws

Not sure where the piss is coming from, but it's not from Moore or Krugman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:17 PM

72. of course they are

 

as is the case more often than not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:33 AM

16. stupidicus pisses on Moore and Krugman

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CleanLucre (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:18 PM

73. hardly

 

and as any fifth grader that read my comments would likely discern, they'd likely see us in total agreement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM

18. The ACA is "diluted & flawed"

because diluting it was the Only damned way the R's would let it pass. The bottom line and in spite of its current status, We finally have something to build on which is a hellava Lot more than we had before yesterday!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM

29. That's exactly how I feel. Now, it's a lot easier to amend the legislation to improve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM

33. How many Rs voted for it? nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:00 AM

128. The minority Sen GOP didn't Filibuster n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:52 AM

37. That's the way I look at it too -

it is a start. Now, we scream louder to get more. I will not rest until we have universal health care for all - government-run and funded with tax dollars. I am not afraid to say that, and not afraid to advise cutting the war-mongering to be able to afford it. I am for health care, against killing brown people in other countries for cheaper oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 12:55 PM

65. I'm with You!

I'm not afraid to and Do tell the poor recipients of my DC Daily calls to lawmakers-That I Want my tax dollar contributions to Our Gov't to be used to Help those who are less fortunate than I. Period. I may need help someday, maybe not-but it's satisfying to Know that I contributed to Helping people rather than contributions made without My permission, for funding death via wars and cuts to vital services that improve our whole community called "America"..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:19 PM

74. of course it is

 

that's obvious to many if not most

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:35 PM

83. Exactly, we can make something better out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:57 AM

127. "Only damned way the R's would let it pass." - not a single republican voted for the bill.

Republicans had nothing to do with 'letting it pass'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM

23. I don't often use smilies. They are shortcuts of shortcuts (words)

But in this case, there's not much to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:20 PM

75. me either

 

and there's not much diff between having very little if anything of relevance and nothing to say,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:49 AM

31. I know many of the more 'centrist' posters here see honesty as a flaw...

 

Both men are pretty dead on both in their criticism of the serious flaws in the bill and in their calling the upholding of the law a victory. I wonder if the OP remembers that when it was originally past, the flaws were openly acknowledged among Democrats, and we all vowed to fix those flaws and improve this law, not to craft an easy chair out of laurels to sit in claiming we did all we need to do. This is just a start, as these Mike and Paul clearly state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:22 PM

76. I agree with both of them

 

as my commentary should make clear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM

35. If you can't see that the bill is seriously flawed, then you're looking at it

through rose-colored glasses.

And Moore and Krugman are correct in pointing out what that flaw is: required purchase of private insurance with few restrictions on the insurers.

It's sad when people take the attitude, "It's the best we can get."

No, it's not. The countries that base their health care on private insurance have the insurance companies on a choke chain: prompt payment unless they can *prove* fraud (no looking for lame excuses not to pay) and limits on executive compensation are two of the biggies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:24 PM

77. I knew it was when it passed

 

and didn't need to have it passed before I knew what was in it.

I couldn't find those darn death panels anywhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM

36. there's a huge difference b/w criticizing the ACA and "piss[ing] on the ACA decision"

The former only makes sense, given that the bill is a start towards a fair and effective health care system rather than the final step. The latter makes less sense, because had the supreme court struck down the law it would have made further progress more difficult. (Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #36)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:26 PM

78. indeed

 

I'm a little torn currently on whether your assessment on the difficulty thing is valid or not though, given that without it, the push for single-payer mighta been stronger, given it's about the only solution left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 AM

39. So, actually, they each applauded the decision, with reservations.

Or you could frame it in a more contentious manner guaranteed to provoke dissension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:10 AM

47. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:14 AM

50. Bingo. Taking a page from the Politico playbook

Stirring the pot just for stirring the pot's sake.

Frankly, I thought Moore was a bit too conciliatory. I'm gobsmacked that anyone would suggest that he's pissing on the decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:33 PM

80. who? me?

 

I proposed it in the manner I did due to provocations.

I was under the impression (from some) that any citation of flaws or dissent regarding the law even in part on that glorious day was tantamount to treason to the cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #80)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:23 PM

98. Your liberal noblesse oblige plays poorly.

In fact, it reminds me a lot of the tone of Repugs that claim liberals think the President is some kind of Messiah. It's a pretty tiresome one note symphony, at any rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #98)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:58 PM

110. and you've nothing but sour notes

 

and intellectual ineptness stemming from operating on too small of a knowledge pool, which almost always results in the use of hollow declarations your pool can't fill.

At least you don't have to worry about drowning, unless you're as small as your words indicate

I've reminded many a rightwingnut that he does satisfy the small "m" definition of the word, since he did save us from the Bush calamity.

You don't shit about me, you just have nothing left but shit to talk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #110)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:25 PM

116. I merely tried to harmonize with the off key melody of your OP.

Now you are improvising as if you had forgotten the tune.

You must have been disappointed when you at last returned to the scene of your drive-by and saw so few dancing to your tune. It left nary a ripple in my own vast pool of knowledge.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #116)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:57 AM

133. tried and failed

 

you did.

and that alleged vast pool of knowledge must be the explanation for the lack of any substance other than repetitive turds of the kind this TP addressed.

thanks though, for admitting that you're opposed to the complaints M&K made about the ACA, and my call for them to keep it up so that it might be improved upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 AM

40. So correctly pointing out what is wrong with ACA is pissing on the SCOTUS decision

Wait, what?
Really.... really..........really?

Look the ACA is flawed, a step in the right direction but it is flawed. I still want Universal Health Care and will continue to fight for it. Just because the ACA does some good things doesn't mean that I can't have complaints about it and want the Republicons to win. We won't get what we want if we don't demand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chisox08 (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:34 PM

82. well said

 

it's too bad all around here don't feel that way about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:04 AM

41. reminds me of CNN Faux news yesterday

write the headline before reading the whole article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:35 PM

84. how so

 

your response me reminds me of someone who does a lot of fruitless and incorrect assuming

there's a simple cure for that -- either asking questions, or go into the hurry up and wait routine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #84)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:32 PM

117. It sure looks like you are having great fun tonight...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:10 AM

46. I read Moore's commentary not as pissing on it, but celebrating

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:16 AM

51. Yup.

Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #46)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:40 PM

85. I used a figure of speech

 

and characterization others used/applied to what was no doubt in most cases, similar conduct, to make a point my commentary on the matter covered.

excuse me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

54. Nice To See A Fella Living Up To His Name, Sir....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #54)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:53 AM

59. Heheh...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #54)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:42 PM

86. Nice to see a fella living up to his nic alrighty

 

imagine a "magistrate" deciding a case without all the material facts but a buttload of assuming

you can however leave the "me" outta those results

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #86)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:01 PM

112. Ha! Ha! You're pretty uh. . . un-informed yourself. You have NO idea how qualified The Magistrate is

Perhaps on the boards you usually frequent, people get high post counts for little or nothing. It's a tougher crowd than perhaps you are used to around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #112)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:03 PM

113. +1000 well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #112)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:23 PM

138. and I could care less

 

it's just another subject-changer displaying its impotence as far as I am concerned

hardly someone that represents a threat to anyone but itself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #86)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:13 PM

135. The Squeal, Sir, Is The Enjoyable Sign The Shaft Went Home

If you stick out your mug like that, it is going to get wumped....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #135)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:25 PM

139. that was exactly what I thought

 

about your stupid, non-topical response

I'm afraid any wumpings are well outta your reach, as you made clear with your initial whine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #139)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:23 PM

141. You Know, Sir, It Does Not Bother Me To Keep This Idiocy Up And Current

It is pretty clear you are just looking for kicks, and not that fun, 'kicks just keep gettin' harder find' kind, either. But as it is evident a number of people are having a pleasant time jeering you each time this bobs to the top, there is no reason not to be indulgent.

"Whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #141)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:40 PM

143. thanks for conceding

 

the witlessness of your initial response, and further showcasing your ineptness with claims (of the anal kind in every sense of the word) that only served to establish your own guilt of the charge you posed.

Your playing dodgeboy now and showing a desire to establish the only thing you likely have a mastery of -- the "last word" game -- erases none of that, and indeed, it helps explain it.

I could care less about your imaginary "pals" laughing behind my back. That's just a variation on the same kinda garbage I've been reading and hearing from rightwingnut dodgeboys for decades now.

You'd think that self-proclaimed geniuses like yourself (the role you and your imaginary pals are assuming here) would be able to refute what I posted and best me with the ease you wipe your lips or your ass crack -- assuming you don't waste much time sorting out which is which -- but no, you just pretend you can and did with BS that doesn't even address what I posted, making it impossible for you to have done so.

I don't need any one to be the "judge" of that, because no one but an idiot or a dishonest and infantile jerk would deny it.

The day I'll concern myself with a even a universe full of turd-tossing monkeys that find me "funny" and your unwarranted and juvenile garbage highbrow stuff, will never arrive.

I have enjoyed making fun of it and you though, and look forward to your next dodge showcasing your singular interest in a popularity contest like some kinda pimple-faced schoolboy, and using it as a "proof" though.

Is that what decision are based on in your kangaroo court, the number of peedonnuts that come from the peeingnuts gallery?

This is the only thing you've made "clear" here. WHat's clear to objective readers without a major and prolonged investment in simply being a rather poor smartass like yourself, is likely the polar opposite.

But if it makes you feel better, hang your wig on your imaginary, unseen, and unheard inhabitants of the universe and their laughter.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

55. Nice cherry picking...

They are both ecstatic about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #55)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:43 PM

87. thanks

 

I see it done around here all the time by our resident purists.

I suppose I should thank them for the idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #87)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:53 AM

129. Thank them on your way out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #129)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:28 AM

131. my, whatta lame, substanceless retort

 

that provides evidence for and represents exactly the kinda BS I addressed in the TP

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #131)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:27 PM

142. My apologies...

at first I didn't read your thread to the end
I assumed I knew where you were heading

But I'm down with it - Keep pissing Michael and Paul

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #142)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:57 PM

144. notta problem

 

most did, and I can understand why

the overarching point I was trying to make is of course, what transpired here.

I think far too often many of us lefties are too quick to judge the motives behind the complaints that have piled up over the last going on four years now, which leads to divisions on an interpersonal level and therefore potentially will make us collectively weaker numerically, since that could make the diff between some staying in the fold and say, voting green where they'll be accepted, since they make and share many of the same complaints.

and then of course, the intolerance over complaints also erodes the liberal status as the "tolerant" ones as well

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Social-networking-and-politics/Main-findings/Social-networking-sites-and-politics.aspx

I see it as undermining the necessary solidarity we're gonna need to beat back the rightwingnut hordes, and to bring BHO and the dem leadership more back in line with the base and their wants and desires, like with single-payer for example.

If we don't do it, who will? And a lack of complaining means no impetus for it on their part.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

56. I agree with their assessments.

Both say just what I feel, this legislation can now be built and improved upon, like SS. It's the proverbial foot in the door and with yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, the door is firmly propped open.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:44 PM

88. me too

 

....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:40 AM

58. You're kidding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:45 PM

89. nope

 

they clearly violated the "thy shall speak no evil about the dems or their work product" I read arouind here all the time.

that's what gave me the idea for this post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:28 PM

61. Until we get single-payer, I'm fine with the mandate.

It will lower the costs to everyone to have everyone in the pool. The only people adversely affected will be the freeloaders who can afford healthcare but don't buy it and then access the system for emergencies, and those costs are distributed to all of us.

The poor and the lower incomes will have complete or partially subsidized premiums, on a sliding scale. The only "victims" of the mandate are the freeloaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:48 PM

90. I'm not

 

but I understand your pov on the matter.

If it was in the form of a tax for medicare for all as opposed to feeding the insurance companies no matter how slightly or largely, I would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #61)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:14 AM

118. People will not be buying healthcare.

They will be buying insurance, which will provide some - perhaps adequate, perhaps not - access to healthcare. For many, it will only afford them the knowledge that they have insurance; it will not provide them sufficient coverage to take care of the majority of their health care needs.

A partially subsidized plan that is only required to cover 60% of allowable costs after a $5,950 deductible isn't health care for someone who needs help simply paying the monthly premium - it is a tantalizing glimpse of what others can afford. In essence, it is nothing more than a catastrophic care plan, only useful in getting them past the gatekeeper in the hospital accounting department if they develop a major problem or have a very serious accident. And after that, it won't save them from medical bankruptcy, because we (as a nation) are still doing nothing to address the very real problem of spiraling costs. It is better than nothing, but hardly 'healthcare' in the minds of most.

Still - they won't be 'freeloaders', so I guess that makes it all right.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM

62. but he said; But it’s still a big step toward a better—and by that I mean morally better — society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:04 PM

92. I agree

 

the long and short of it is as I conclude my responses here -- my subject line and the quotes from them was smartasshood in response to an all too common theme/result of straying too far from "the dems/BHO do no wrong, ergo diseent and criticism of them is verbotten" I had read that were applicable to this specific case -- the "victory".

It's almost like my commentary that pretty much matched their own in the way you cited, and that I wove the above into, was ignorant incongruity and inconsistency rather than the deliberate act that it was.

I have no problem with what Moore and Krugman wrote, I have a problem with the way so many think about and act upon the criticisms others around here offer regarding BHO and the dem leadership and their work products. Others were writing about "the pissing" others here were doing in the wake of the decision, which was no doubt far more about the flaws they see in the law rather than any desire to have seen it struck completely down over those flaws.

and I could hardly make this a specific callout to named posters or posts without fear of editorial reprisal, just as they didn't, now could I?

Apparently I was too subtle for those without a guilty conscience, who knew exactly what I was posting about if they read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:27 PM

64. HMMMM.....112 posts? Something smells fishy, and not just their logic!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:06 PM

93. what you appear to know about logic

 

likely wouldn't fill the inside of the hydrogen's electron orbit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #93)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:51 PM

105. Your post was a fail, but you know that now

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #105)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:59 PM

111. thanks for conceding the validity of my observation

 

and further validating it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #111)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:20 PM

115. You seem te type that just makes up stuff so you can argue, easy...

 

To pick up on that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #115)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:02 PM

134. further concessions were neither solicited or warranted

 

but by all means, keep them coming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:30 PM

79. You feel good about saying that Michael Moore and Paul Krugman PISS on this decision,

after they do nothing of the sort? After they recognize the Act for what it is, a flawed product of policy and politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:07 PM

94. no

 

I just applied the definition for such I saw outta some fellow DUers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #94)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:19 PM

97. Then I'd either acknowledge that 'fact,'

or not use it.

We try to inform eachother, and hope to avoid inflammatory and unnecessary comments.

Welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #97)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:47 PM

104. oh

 

I'll keep an eye out for you in the future in those posts (like the one that prompted this one) of that kind from them then, to make sure that you're even handed in the dispensing of this kinda admonishment then. I agree, that effort on their part was a totally inflammatory and unnecessary indictment of valued and likely smarter DU posters, despite them being unnamed and unquoted.

What "fact" would that be? I would say by now as prevalently as I've seen criticisms of this and that directed at BHO/dem policies by DUers similarly punished, that the point/fact would be common knowledge by now.

That's why I asked if they (M&K) should be boycotted for such an egregious violation, kinda the way some put posters on "ignore" around here for expressing povs some find unpalatable.

To quite a few around here, no dissent or criticism, and no matter how principled or defensible it is, can go unpunished.

What are you saying/asking, that we should just take our medicinely silently, and that top posts like this in our defense are far more offensive and objectionable to the common "those who criticize BHO/the dems are just poopyheads and likely rightwingnut wolves in lefty clothing seeking to undermine them and their agenda in their entirety by way of killing enthusiasm and lessening the body count in the voting booths this Nov!".

By the standards of quite a few around here as they apply them to fellow DUers, there was NOTHING inflammatory or unnecessary about what I said and asked about K&M, there was merely confrontation in the form of a "If DUers are often found guilty under identical circumstances...." charge, which none of them have seemed to muster a response to.

You see, I know this, because I've been a victim.

If you aren't guilty of such conduct, then I'd say drop it, because this isn't the first time I've addressed this issue and it certainly won't be the last.

ANd my effort here was to inform in response to unnecessary inflammation that occurs here daily. The info is, many so-called "liberals" around here share behavior identical to in both substance and goal with the Bushbots we use to battle. You live with it and tolerate it in silence if you want, but that ain't my bag -- as they use to say. I have no tolerance for that kinda intolerance, or demands that I be just another bee in the hive -- or else, the else being called whatever the highbrow non-flamers find it necessary to call me and my kind.

We can disagree without being disagreeable, and I doubt that either Moore or Krugman would take offense to my effort here, since their use was as examples of exactly the conditions I seek, as your words indicate you do. I can't repost the examples and the posters in the form of a callout to prosecute my case against them in the complete manner desirable as far as I know, so I merely used subtlety to jab them with and to assist in the pleading for the desirability and necessity of acknowledging the existence of flaws, which is the FLAW in their BS it also served as a complaint about/criticism of.

thanks for the welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:34 PM

81. Erm, I am a huge mandate supporter here and I've been saying the exact same thing.

I do not, in fact, believe that they are "pissing" as the DUers here who post misleading information on a regular basis. They're being very reasonable, pointing out the pluses, and advocating for improvement.

I do disagree with Krugman that the Republican mandate was the same as the Democratic mandate, though, but a lot of people miss those nuances. Not really feeling like yet another tail chasing on this issue though so I'm sure I'll be sniped at over this issue and told how wrong I am and how I need to be educated about this or that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #81)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:13 PM

96. you scored

 

all my effort regarding Moore and Krugman was about was pointing out exactly what you've been victimized by.

DUers that were pointing out flaws were characterized as "pissing" by their fellow DUers, so all that stuff was merely a "what's good for the goose..." effort on my part, in an effort to show the flaw in their reasoning, or worse, hypocrisy if M&K weren't similarly charged and found guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:02 PM

91. i see what you did there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #91)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:10 PM

95. me too and it's

not really cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #95)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:57 PM

99. why so?

 

what I did here was attempted to call out the DUers who were of the mind that the expression of any dissent or criticisms of the law on that glorious victory day were to be admonished in the form of at least one top post I saw referencing how presumably abominable and unworthy they are for daring to have done so as Moore and Krugman did.

In other words, if it's gonna be okay for them to refer to "pissers" in an effort to humiliate them with their silence as the goal, it's gonna have to be okay for me to say "fugg" that. That was the point behind my citing Moore and Krugman, and pointing out the necessity and desirability of the criticisms in my commentary that they leveled against the ACA -- as DU "pissers" had done.

Imo, it's laughably stupid for this to occur in the midst of every issue of significance to hit this board where issues involving BHO and/or the dem leadership are concerned. Why you might ask? Well because of the content of the objections of the "pissing" chargers, which are largely confined specifically or are akin to, their (the alleged pissers) sole intent and desire being to undermine support for BHO and/or the dems period -- not on some specific topic -- and they (the pissing chargers) do so in the role of "champions of uniting" (or maintianing it anyway), like insulting people with "pissing" charges or belittling their principled povs on this or that in insulting ways is the way of a "uniter". In other words, in their efforts to unite or maintain the status quo with often insulting criticism of people for their criticisms of policy choices made, they'll be lucky to maintain the status quo, because most of us have issues with "the issues". It doesn't matter if we as voters go to the voting booth enthused or unenthused, just that we do. The way so many around here make a lack of enthusiasm resulting from disappointment on issues a crime, hardly raises their enthusiasm or lessens the general divisiveness they apparently see themselves as the arbiters of by demanding their be NONE. It's inescapable and a fact of life to some degree, but imo, their making it worse with such conduct, not better.

I haven't been around here long enough to determine if this kinda "purist" as some label them, are the minority or the majority, but I do know that it is intolerant and divisive, which hardly satisfies the definition of "liberal", much less an effort that is conducive for the kinda solidarity we need in gaining the mastery to dictate who and what we're gonna collectively be as a people and country.

One of the first posts I responded to upon joining here, was an appeal from a DUer anoouncing that some relation of his -- a long time conservative looking to explore a change -- was basically being harrassed outta here.

BY all means, keep thinking my "pissing" on those kind is "not cool".

It's not those critical of this and that about BHO/dems that need to be silenced -- if anybody does -- it's those that try to silence them with the kinda schoolyard tactics my "Moore and Krugman pissed..." subject line and quotes were intended to spotlight and show the potential hypocrisy of the paragons of uniting around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #99)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:52 PM

107. Your reply highlights

exactly what I meant by it not being cool.

First of all, you clearly misrepresent the intent of Michael Moore and Krugman, if anyone reads their articles or has watched them on TV since the ruling. They did not Piss all over the ACA ruling. You mis-characterized what they have said.

Do I get the point you are trying to make? absolutely. However that is more of a meta issue, after all your reply admits to this being a callout, and your taking issue with a few DUers. Look I do understand what you are saying, I find it really terrible and beneath DU members to try and silence dissent. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but there is a saying, they don't have a right to their own facts. In some instances it is necessary to correct misinformation where it is found. I think sometimes people have a tendency to voice that someone is trying to silence them when there is just a difference of opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #107)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:47 AM

121. wrong

 

it's not cool to you, but who cares?

I don't, because the issue it addressed is far bigger than some obscure poster that thinks my use of a mischaracterization had some kinda evil intent, instead of its use as an object lesson of sorts as hyperbole to bring attention to it.

Furthermore,

1. as any honest and reasonable deconstruction of my commentary would show, I'm in complete agreement with them. BY all means, show me otherwise. I would have thought that alone along with the question that followed my quotes, as well as my commentary, that it would be self-evident, and particularly after this. To think otherwise would be the same as "thinking" that I charged myself with "pissing" on the decision too.

Acknowledgement of and complaints about the flaws of the ACA are as important as its human misery-relieving benefits, because that's the path to providing more.

Keep pissing Mike and Paul.


2. I don't care what you "think", what I read was something very narrow and specific, to paraphrase or perhaps quote "some people just aren't happy unless they are unhappy" directed in a top post at those dissing components of the ACA in the context of the decision, meaning what but they're masochists or suffering some kinda mental malady. Does that read like a simple "difference of opinion" to you? To me it reads like deliberate insulting designed to achieve only one end goal, although some aren't happy unless they're trying to make others miserable.

3. In my meager experiences around here, if you make a post critical of BHO and/or the dems without qualifying it with how much you just love the hell outta them anyway (M&Ks saving grace no doubt with the ACA), what do you get in response? I've read the "they're only criticizing the Kill list, etc, because they wanna dampen enthusiasm, cause BHO to lose, etc literally dozens and dozens of times here in my short time here posting. SUre, no one can have legitimate and defensible moral, legal, etc complaints about that or anything else, it always has to be something nefarious, and of course, they are all too stupid to be aware of the alternative in Romney, etc. Difference of opinion my ass -- that ends when the insults start flying, whether in the form of direct name-calling, or those of like kind to be found in innuendo of 25 words or less. The message is still the same, it's just that the direct name-calling is less if not entirely indefensible, and punished with far higher frequency, and is therefore avoided.

4. Whether they did or didn't "piss" on the ACA decision is a matter of opinion (despite the ease or lack of it one would have in defending that pov, which is a courtesy I've yet to see outta the "purists" whether it's one we share or not, not fact, which is why all the "purists" under indictment here get away with harboring their opinion they act upon in the manner described behind an unassailable wall of righteousness -- well, and the positive reinforcement they supply each other in swarms to the #3s, etc. To you it's just a "few Duers", but that doesn't fit with my observations, and without some verifiable counting and example keeping, it too is just a "matter of opinion", and not an incontrovertible "fact".

and if I could take a poll on the matter...

You don't seem to think a problem of this kind exists, so we can just drop it here, and spare me the further insults of insisting that you know what I meant and intended, and what I've experienced/observed while here. The only thing I meant, was to point out the hypocrisy of an alleged "few" DUers (despite there being dozens as I recall, that dittoed the message in the aforementioned Top POst alone), with the intended purpose of making the case that "pissing", if that is taken to mean ANY criticism whether qualified or not with whatever, is a good thing, if it is supported by the "facts", regardless of the subject matter criticized. Most here criticize things from BHO and/or the dems because they want to make them better, not to cause their defeat against our shared enemy, but if it makes you sleep better to think it's just a few that forget that, and that it has no negative impact for our cause for them to claim otherwise like in the case cited, then apparently you think such conduct unites, and doesn't divide as it surely does.

Let's just hope this doesn't result in being the proverbial straw that breaks their voting backs, no, given the level of disenchantment and disillusionment they must already have to be so focused on critiques as opposed to the praise our "purist" insist must always be in evidence, and attempt to enforce in the manner described. That's my concern, not whether some DU "moran" tries to impose anything on me.

And this isn't the only place I see this happening

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #121)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:43 AM

126. What is wrong

is to misrepresent Michael Moore and Krugman to be pissing on the ACA decision That is not at all the characterization that should be used. You represent it to be an "object lesson of sorts as hyperbole". It was not an object lesson and it was far from a hyperbolic statement in your title, it was dishonest.

Your title of your OP "Moore and Krugman piss on the ACA decision"


No they did not piss on the ACA Supreme Court Decision

Context is everything and to finish Michael Moore's sentence for you

So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today's court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that's why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! They know what we all know — that the path of history has been, and will continue to move toward the basic human right that all people are entitled to see a doctor and NOT have to worry about losing their home because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. Those days are over, or will be soon, and that is where civilization is headed. It's not headed back to the days of Oliver Twist. Today's victory is momentum, it's forward motion, and we WILL have true universal health care in this country in the not too distant future.

So take some time tonight to celebrate; this is a victory for the people. Actually, more than a victory, it is a mandate that all of us must now make sure that a second-term Obama continues to move the ball down the field, toward a system like they have in every other First World country on the planet. He simply has to improve Medicare and then expand it to every citizen in the country. The countries that do this, their people live an average of two to four years longer than we do. Is there a reason anyone doesn't want an extra four years of their lives? Or that our babies would have a better chance of surviving their first year like they do in the 48 countries that have a better infant mortality rate than we do? Exactly who is opposed to this? You'd have to be a bit…crazy.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/more-victory-decision-today-was-mandate-us-act

From Krugman on the Supreme Court Decision

So the Supreme Court — defying many expectations — upheld the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. There will, no doubt, be many headlines declaring this a big victory for President Obama, which it is. But the real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.

How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.

...

But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=1

Not only have you misrepresented their articles in the title of your OP, you are misrepresenting my post. I made a general statement, and I also clarified that general statement with the word "sometimes". You have not presented any evidence, other than conjecture, which was the reason for my general statement. I know you said that you don't care what I think, but your rather long post says otherwise.

Let's just hope this doesn't result in being the proverbial straw that breaks their voting backs


If a message board breaks anyone's "voting back", then some priorities are seriously flawed.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #126)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:27 AM

130. no, what's dishonest

 

is you.

There's no dishonesty to be found in BSing and subsequently making it clear that one indeed was BSing.

All you've done here is focused on teaching me some kinda lesson over material and motives you didn't understand, and rather than accept my explanation for it, you're clinging to that effort.

Let's face it, you've nothing to go on.

1. You've no rebuttal to the fact that my complete agreement with them undermines your dishonest and wholly unsupported "opinion" that I was serious about their having pissed on the ACA decision.

2. Nobody has assigned you as judge and jury, nor has there been a consensus sought, much less achieved, that the use of that subject line for the purposes outlined was either intentionally dishonest in a dishonesty preservation way, or to be condemned in the manner you've attempted from the start and continue to, despite my efforts to explain it. Maybe I should have followed it with a "NOT" so that the juveniles around here would have a better grasp/understanding of my intent, no?

3. Quoting the content of an insulting top post that represented the foundation and cause for my hyperbole, and noting the dozens of "dittos" to, it is not mere conjecture, and your claim of it is nothing more than another example of your clinging to BS in an effort to punish a crime that exists only in your rather biased mind. Clearly and inarguably (well, to those not corrupted by baseless righteousness that lack the ability or acumen to get past it)

Acknowledgement of and complaints about the flaws of the ACA are as important as its human misery-relieving benefits, because that's the path to providing more.

Keep pissing Mike and Paul.


if I was "serious" about the real or imagined offense from M&K, I made myself guilty of the same offense. Apparently neither subtlety nor the obvious are not your strong suit, or in the most likely plausible alternative, you steadfastly refuse to get past your fallacious charges. For me to be guilty of a willful "mischaracterization" and what that connotes, an intent on my part of having made one would needs to be shown. Obviously that is non-existent, but rather than acknowledge that and let it go, you're clinging to you BS. This is similar to but not to be confused with, the garbage that prompted this post. "I" dictate what my efforts and intent with them are, not you. You're doing exacty what the "purist" do with the criticisms and those who offer them around here -- telling them (me in this case) what they think, how they feel, and what their goals for the criticism are.

4. WHo said anything about "a message board" alone? Not I. Do I expect people like you or the "purists" I indicted to treat those like me any differently elsewhere? And what exactly does "and this isn't the only place I see this" mean that I posted? How much trouble do you have deriving proper meaning from even plain and simple english? It means that it happens likely everywhere people like the "purists" can be found, which means that the accumulative effect of it can and likely will be significant for those who are on the fence deciding whether to vote period or for which party this Nov.

So by all means as already noted, maintain your pov that the kinda insulting and dismissiveness it represents I noted with this TP will have no significant impact. I can only hope it doesn't, and think that those that think it's alright -- the potential negative impact notwithstanding -- as you apparently do, given you're inclined to minimize the problem with "it's but a few "characterization" and "your single post with dozens of them is mere CONJECTURE" BS, are not only supporting the practice of being insulting and dismissive with the enabling those things represent -- kinda the way rightwingnuts dismiss their racism, etc problem with "but a few" excuse -- whether you know it or not.

It's my "opinion" that it's a problem with predictable outcomes, that tons of evidence seen here, on other boards, and in my interpersonal and societal interactions support. That in conjunction with all the evidence for a lack of enthusiasm for BHO at this point -- loss of donors, etc -- points to peril we can only debate the magnitude of, not its existence.

SO by all means, keep clinging to your demonstrated fallacious and/or erroneous BS about the messenger here, since you've made it clear the message itself you either can't understand or can't rebut.

And no, I remain uncaring about you, much like K&M didn't write their stuff because they care about what those that disagree with them "think". So "lengthy posts" and my not caring about you and what you think personally are not mutually exclusive things. If there wasn't a wider audience to read it like here, and we were in a room alone, I'd have told you to piss the fugg off as soon as you started trying to dishonestly dictate to me what I meant and intended to do with this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:45 PM

102. should they be admoished for telling the truth?

what are we - repukes???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:56 PM

108. I think you like reading your own stuff!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:45 AM

124. Recommended...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:11 AM

125. ACA is such a stupid mess I'm almost embarrassed to be American.

 

Thats a big reason I'm leaving America-too many stupid people. I need to be in a country with common sense.

BUT ACA is far better than nothing or the GOP "Dont Get Sick" health plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #125)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:38 AM

132. indeed

 

many feel that way, as do I.

The sad part is, and what I attempted to convey here, is that one should be able to express that without qualification and the fear of reprisal absent one, like your "it's better...".

BHO/the dems generally and period are better than the alternative, and one shouldn't have to add that in the course of complaining about this and that to maintain their claims to general support for them, or their aversion to the alternative. To some, it's like criticizing this or that absent those reassurances is tantamount to guilt for a host of crimes that serve to undermine their prosepects this Nov. etc.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:16 PM

137. OFFS

Where the heck is the "stop being mean to Britney" video?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #137)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:27 PM

140. probably under the pile of turds

 

so many around here seem to take turns fondling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread