Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 21:14:15 GMT -5
It's one of 50, like a penny in a roll. Just because you are stuck on 50, doesn't mean others cannot understand that 1 is less than the whole accumulation (without defining that total accumulation with a number). ETA: "one of 50, like a penny in a roll" also could work... as an EQUIVALENCY AND as an analogy... (as I already stated... I made an analogy which is most definitely NOT an equivalency). Just curious... what if the roll wasn't marked, and the person you were using the analogy for didn't know how to count past 10 or 20 (for example: if you want to explain it to a 4 year old)... they would have no concept of 50... even with 50 pennies in their hand. They do know "many" though... and they also understand 1. Simple concepts, sir. Simple concepts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 13, 2015 21:32:00 GMT -5
i honestly don't remember any of those bullet points being made by anyone other than pundits. i certainly never assumed ANY of those things, relative to the law. but thanks, you answered the question: the lies told by the media and by the pundit class. LOL... well we all already knew about the famous lies Obama told (the "you can keep your doctor" and "you can keep your insurance" ones)... and no one has increased their appreciation of it over those. Most of those lies come from the Liar-in-chief himself. They are just repeated and expanded upon by the media. People (in general) appreciate what the media cons them into appreciating. The media has done an AWESOME job of conning the people on/about Obamacare. actually, i think he prefaced both of those lies, which shows he lacks imagination. that is fault enough. edit: for the record, i don't think that it is an appreciation of those lies that is causing the popularity to rise. but i have no survey to back that up, which is OK. you don't either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 18:46:16 GMT -5
That would be an interesting survey....
(no this is NOT a real survey!) 10,000 people that approve of Obamacare surveyed:
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 15, 2015 20:06:19 GMT -5
i honestly don't remember any of those bullet points being made by anyone other than pundits. i certainly never assumed ANY of those things, relative to the law. but thanks, you answered the question: the lies told by the media and by the pundit class. LOL... well we all already knew about the famous lies Obama told (the "you can keep your doctor" and "you can keep your insurance" ones)... and no one has increased their appreciation of it over those. Most of those lies come from the Liar-in-chief himself. They are just repeated and expanded upon by the media. People (in general) appreciate what the media cons them into appreciating. The media has done an AWESOME job of conning the people on/about Obamacare. Technically, those were not lies. Existing qualifying plans were grandfathered in under the law, so people could have kept their plans and their doctors as long as the insurance companies did not change the plans. They did change them though, which is what subsequently made the statements untrue. Is that not correct?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 20:42:41 GMT -5
LOL... well we all already knew about the famous lies Obama told (the "you can keep your doctor" and "you can keep your insurance" ones)... and no one has increased their appreciation of it over those. Most of those lies come from the Liar-in-chief himself. They are just repeated and expanded upon by the media. People (in general) appreciate what the media cons them into appreciating. The media has done an AWESOME job of conning the people on/about Obamacare. Technically, those were not lies. Existing qualifying plans were grandfathered in under the law, so people could have kept their plans and their doctors as long as the insurance companies did not change the plans. They did change them though, which is what subsequently made the statements untrue. Is that not correct? That is not correct. The plans that got cancelled were no longer allowed under ACA rules. Basically people could keep plans they liked... as long as they were ACA compliant. Problem was, many people that had plans that were NOT ACA compliant liked their plans. ETA: As to "keep your doctor"... many plans were re-negotiated, due to the new ACA requirements, with medical providers and many providers pulled out of the less expensive plans... making people in those less expensive plans lose their doctors. ETA II: the "grandfathering" you are probably referring to came AFTER the plans had already been cancelled and there was the huge uproar. Obama made an illegal/unconstitutional decision to re-write the law allowing a "grace period" for those plans. Problem was... too little too late. Coverages were already lost/cancelled.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 15, 2015 20:51:16 GMT -5
Which is why I specified "qualifying plans." Yes, plans that were not compliant were cancelled. I never looked into how bad those plans must have been, but I do recall reading that many of them had terrible coverage. People liked them because they paid little for them, not because they were good coverage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 22:57:04 GMT -5
Which is why I specified "qualifying plans." Yes, plans that were not compliant were cancelled. I never looked into how bad those plans must have been, but I do recall reading that many of them had terrible coverage. People liked them because they paid little for them, not because they were good coverage. Doesn't matter WHY they liked them... people liked them and they couldn't keep them. It was a lie.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2015 11:35:30 GMT -5
The whole debate by the opposition was festooned with lies. Obama was responding to near hysterical fear mongering about death panels and bureaucrats choosing your doctors for you.
Perhaps he wisely (in a political sense) forsook a more nuanced and lengthy "blah, blah, blah" response for "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor"
Reagan-speak at it's best.
the way i understood that comment is "how could you possibly like such a shitty plan"? but i get that some people...actually....did!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 5:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 1:14:52 GMT -5
This isn't really a "vs. Bush" comment... but... I wonder how Obama NOT ordering the Flags flown at half-staff in remembrance of the Marines recently killed in Chattanooga, by a terrorist, will affect his "approval rating".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 20, 2015 1:27:05 GMT -5
This isn't really a "vs. Bush" comment... but... I wonder how Obama NOT ordering the Flags flown at half-staff in remembrance of the Marines recently killed in Chattanooga, by a terrorist, will affect his "approval rating". his approval has fallen sharply in the last two weeks, but i am not sure why.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 20, 2015 10:42:49 GMT -5
This isn't really a "vs. Bush" comment... but... I wonder how Obama NOT ordering the Flags flown at half-staff in remembrance of the Marines recently killed in Chattanooga, by a terrorist, will affect his "approval rating". I doubt if this one thing will have much effect on his approval rating...but George Bush probably would have flown the flags at half-staff. Just saying... agreed, because he was a flag sucking weasel.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 20, 2015 12:58:37 GMT -5
So supportive he sent thousands to their death over a bogus war he lied us into.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 20, 2015 13:05:42 GMT -5
agreed, because he was a flag sucking weasel. Well. That was a really classless thing to say about somebody who was so supportive of the military, and seemed to have a genuine appreciation for the things they do. yeah. he cares a lot.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 20, 2015 16:24:40 GMT -5
Better than you understand how the POTUS thing works. Or are you one of those naïve apologistas that thinks Bush isn't a war criminal? That he didn't lie? That his dad and cronies and the VEEP with the conflict of interest didn't make hundreds of billions while those service men and women were being killed, maimed for life, or left with permanent psychological damage that puts them, their families, and others at risk?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 20, 2015 17:19:11 GMT -5
Better than you understand how the POTUS thing works. Or are you one of those naïve apologistas that thinks Bush isn't a war criminal? That he didn't lie? That his dad and cronies and the VEEP with the conflict of interest didn't make hundreds of billions while those service men and women were being killed, maimed for life, or left with permanent psychological damage that puts them, their families, and others at risk? so respectful of the military that he worked over his poor old dad for a cushy TANF assignment and then went AWOL. yeah. he is a real hero.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 22, 2015 3:52:21 GMT -5
agreed, because he was a flag sucking weasel. Well. That was a really classless thing to say about somebody who was so supportive of the military, and seemed to have a genuine appreciation for the things they do. He may be appreciative, but W is in many ways, is the ultimate politician. He knows how to manipulate people and can easily make people believe what they want to believe. W did more photo ops with the military than any recent President in my lifetime. Given his history, I believe it was more for PR than it was about genuine love & respect for those who serve in the military.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 22, 2015 11:30:20 GMT -5
How does the POTUS thing work then? Does he send troops into war or Congress?
I'm not apologizing for anyone, but I enjoy talking from a factual standpoint.
Did George Bush's dad and his cronies (I don't know who his cronies are) make hundreds of billions?
Do you have a link for any of this (and not one of DJ's "Jefferson's mom was black" links, but kind of a reputable link)?
Last time I checked, it's Congress that sends service men and women into battle to be killed, maimed for life, and left with permanent psychological damage that puts them, their families, and others at risk. I didn't realize the POTUS had that power. Can you tell us whether Congress voted on this war or not? For free extra credit - I'll tell you that it was a Democratically controlled Congress .
ratchets,
I'm sorry but I got this all wrong. George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Powell, Rice...they had nothing at all to do with the Iraq War, even though W was Commander-in-Chief of our military forces.
Also...GHW Bush and his various cronies, listed at CarlyleGroup.com, and the Halliburton Co., with an ex CEO as Veep, didn't make any money at all on the war.
Thanks for your service.
-Don
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2015 13:21:50 GMT -5
Better than you understand how the POTUS thing works. Or are you one of those naïve apologistas that thinks Bush isn't a war criminal? That he didn't lie? That his dad and cronies and the VEEP with the conflict of interest didn't make hundreds of billions while those service men and women were being killed, maimed for life, or left with permanent psychological damage that puts them, their families, and others at risk? How does the POTUS thing work then? Does he send troops into war or Congress?
I'm not apologizing for anyone, but I enjoy talking from a factual standpoint.
Did George Bush's dad and his cronies (I don't know who his cronies are) make hundreds of billions?
Do you have a link for any of this (and not one of DJ's "Jefferson's mom was black" links, but kind of a reputable link)?
could you please stop doing this, bro. it is childish and annoying. i made a mistake, i confessed it QUICKLY. when you make mistakes, and you have made plenty, i don't rub your face in them for months on end. we are all human here, last i checked.
Last time I checked, it's Congress that sends service men and women into battle to be killed, maimed for life, and left with permanent psychological damage that puts them, their families, and others at risk. I didn't realize the POTUS had that power. Can you tell us whether Congress voted on this war or not? For free extra credit - I'll tell you that it was a Democratically controlled Congress .
false. since the WPA, the president can send the troops in for up to 60 days without ANY authorization. once the president GETS authorization, he doesn't have to USE it- therefore the choice to send troops in or not is entirely his. so, there is your factual standpoint, which you can now choose to use or not use.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2015 13:29:31 GMT -5
Well. That was a really classless thing to say about somebody who was so supportive of the military, and seemed to have a genuine appreciation for the things they do. He may be appreciative, but W is in many ways, is the ultimate politician. He knows how to manipulate people and can easily make people believe what they want to believe. W did more photo ops with the military than any recent President in my lifetime. Given his history, I believe it was more for PR than it was about genuine love & respect for those who serve in the military. he loved seeing himself as a "man's man", as well, even though he was nothing of the sort. he was, is, and forever shall be a preppy cheerleader. he has approximately as much meddle, and honor as a hamster- and significantly less sincerity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2015 17:18:12 GMT -5
false. since the WPA, the president can send the troops in for up to 60 days without ANY authorization. once the president GETS authorization, he doesn't have to USE it- therefore the choice to send troops in or not is entirely his. so, there is your factual standpoint, which you can now choose to use or not use. And just one more question, if you don't mind of course...what was the result of Congress vote on the Iraq War? there was an Authorization to use Military Force. that AUMF came with restrictions, which were ignored. rather than going after Bush for that, congress, which i believe was controlled by the GOP at the time, let him have his little fishing expedition, and over 100k people died as a result. but let's be clear, the AUTHORITY is not the same as the action. i have the AUTHORITY to spend money for the companies i work for. but when i spend that money, i am the one making those choices, and i alone am responsible for them.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 22, 2015 19:53:19 GMT -5
I'll tell you that it was a Democratically controlled Congress
Is this one of Ratchets "factual standpoints"?
As I recall the House was Repo majority when Bush took office and the Senate went repo majority Jan. 1, 2002. Thus, the Congress was, in fact, not democratically controlled.
I apologize to Ratchets for showing that he was wrong. I also apologize to Ratchets for not lying about the BushCo. admin lying us into that debacle and the act of treason in outing Valerie Plame because her husband wouldn't go along with the lie about the phony yellowcake.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2015 14:18:41 GMT -5
there was an Authorization to use Military Force. that AUMF came with restrictions, which were ignored. rather than going after Bush for that, congress, which i believe was controlled by the GOP at the time, let him have his little fishing expedition, and over 100k people died as a result. but let's be clear, the AUTHORITY is not the same as the action. i have the AUTHORITY to spend money for the companies i work for. but when i spend that money, i am the one making those choices, and i alone am responsible for them. Your company gave you AUTHORITY to spend money indiscriminately? I find that hard to believe.
my company gave me the AUTHORITY to spend money. if i do so without legal basis, i can be fired or put on trial for that. we gave Bush the AUTHORITY to go to war. but unfortunately, our congress did not see fit to impeach him for doing it "indiscriminately".
So...if Congress would have voted differently, would there have been an Iraq War?
you mean if they had NOT voted for the AUMF? then Bush could have gone in for up to 60 days without it, but that was it, according to the WPA of 1973. with the AUMF he could go in indefinitely, and that was indeed a huge mistake to give him that AUTHORITY. but it was still his mistake to USE IT. edit: you said "one more question". you are now up to two. would you rather just ask questions, and not set a limit?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 23, 2015 23:36:52 GMT -5
ratchets,
Are you sure you are with stupid?
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Jul 24, 2015 6:34:01 GMT -5
ratchets, Are you sure you are with stupid? Glad you saw the humor in it...I was looking for a new avatar and liked this one for a minute, but the novelty has worn off. I'll find something tomorrow! I liked the kilt.
|
|