|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42596 Posts
On September 30 2015 03:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 02:07 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2015 01:47 Velr wrote:
That the person at the marketplace, which is supposed to assist and help people, couldn't help him is, if in fact true, absolutely horrible.
And no. "You could have Googled it" isn't really an argument against the above. Because many people that would google, would still put more trust in to the trained professional on the other end of the line than on more or less random google finds. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. It's not hugely surprising that people at the call center aren't versed on the intricacies of how Obamacare works or how it'd apply to his unique tax situation. I'm a tax nerd so I can tell you that bucky doesn't owe any tax and that if he submits a w4 stating that he is exempt he won't have a refund for the Obamacare penalty to hit but I think it's unreasonable to expect that from a call center employee. What is more reasonable though is for bucky to spend a few minutes learning how the Obamacare penalty is levied and what is own tax situation is. You won't go far wrong by assuming that the vast majority of people know far less than can be casually found out in a few minutes of independent research. Obviously there are exceptions, such as with doctors, but doing independent research before making any decision is a great habit to have. We live in a world in which most of the information you need to make pretty much any decision is instantly available if you know how to operate a search engine. Pretty much any question you may have has been asked, answered and had multiple nerds arguing over it with the full text available for reviewing if you look. For doctors, doing your own research on medications and treatments is pretty important. Ask questions about tests. If your doctor is recommending a big surgery or something, get a second opinion. Heck, many doctors call in a consulting physician for complicated stuff.
Sure, they ask another doctor for a second opinion. But they don't type a list of symptoms into google and pick the first disease they find.
I suggested doctors are exempt from the "assume they're idiots and find out for yourself" rule because, while you still should try to independently inform yourself and ask the doctor intelligent questions, you simply aren't going to be able to qualify yourself on the issue without significantly more effort. The gulf between your education on the subject and theirs is too wide and the stakes are pretty high. It's that attitude that leads down the homeopathy road. I'll do my own taxes but I won't treat my own cancer.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
I'm all for it. A lot of these groups like Brookings are citing research from people who receive money from the groups they are researching. And the whole "its common practice" argument has lost all meaning for me.
|
Is that really guilt by association? It looks more like questioning a possible conflict of interest.
|
It is 100% conflict of interest. You would be hard press as an attorney to take a case against a client that was currently paying you in another case. Even Brookings agreed and had a rule preventing him from researching.
|
Georgia's parole board declined Tuesday to commute the death sentence of Kelly Renee Gissendaner — even after Pope Francis called for a halt to her execution.
Gissendaner, a mother of three who was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of her husband at the hands of her lover, is set to receive a lethal injection at 7 p.m. ET.
"This decision will not bring healing," said Cathy Zappa, an Episcopal priest and friend of Gissendaner.
Pope Francis, who called for a ban on the death penalty during his visit to the United States last week, asked the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to spare her life, through a letter written by a local archbishop.
"While not wishing to minimize the gravity of the crime for which Ms. Gissendander has been convicted, and while sympathizing with the victims, I nonetheless implore you, in consideration of the reasons that have been expressed to your board, to commute the sentence to one that would better express both justice and mercy," Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano wrote.
Source
Sad.
|
United States42596 Posts
Shit, I think this new Pope might have read the New Testament.
|
It appears the hearing on PP was the exact clown show we expected. I like the parts where they asked about pay and asked her to confirm data she has never seen. Then lied and said it was from PP. Then the Rep was correct and it wasn't from PP. Called her a criminal and so on.
My tax dollars at work.
|
I don't get republicans in congress and their "ram our heads into a brick wall" strategy with obamacare and such/ Just bid your time and focus on the upcoming election so you actually have a chance at changing things. You will never get it done with this president so wait. But lol nope they just keep smashing into that brick wall....over 50 times now while wasting everyone's time and money.
|
On September 30 2015 05:04 Slaughter wrote:
I don't get republicans in congress and their "ram our heads into a brick wall" strategy with obamacare and such/ Just bid your time and focus on the upcoming election so you actually have a chance at changing things. You will never get it done with this president so wait. But lol nope they just keep smashing into that brick wall....over 50 times now while wasting everyone's time and money.
Because they are not interested in changing it. They just wanne look good for their district so they get re-elected.
|
After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans.
The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something.
@below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary.
|
And tell everyone in the US what the head of PP makes a year. Of course, no one will talk about what they made before they got to congress. Or what they will make after. That part is private.
|
Hearings often feature congresspeople (from all sides) wasting time pontificating, and beating up on witnesses they dislike. I'd like to change congressional rules to cut down on that, and use the time for actually asking questions and getting answers, without being needlessly rude to the people who testify.
|
Why haven't liberals been putting the $50M a year number more? I mean the money that PP gets per year is $450m a year but only $50m of the is anyhow specific to them. Thats real small potatoes to close the government over and yet I don't see shit about it anywhere.
On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans.
The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something.
@below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary.
There is no chance democrats get a veto proof majority and I highly doubt that they'll take control over the senate Republicans have 44 seats that they're either keeping or are in deep red areas.
|
On September 30 2015 05:23 Sermokala wrote:Why haven't liberals been putting the $50M a year number more? I mean the money that PP gets per year is $450m a year but only $50m of the is anyhow specific to them. Thats real small potatoes to close the government over and yet I don't see shit about it anywhere. Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans.
The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something.
@below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary. There is no chance democrats get a veto proof majority and I highly doubt that they'll take control over the senate Republicans have 44 seats that they're either keeping or are in deep red areas.
Because this argument isn't about the money.
For opponents even 1 dollar spend on abortions is to much, saying it is peanuts is not an argument for them.
|
On September 30 2015 05:23 Sermokala wrote:Why haven't liberals been putting the $50M a year number more? I mean the money that PP gets per year is $450m a year but only $50m of the is anyhow specific to them. Thats real small potatoes to close the government over and yet I don't see shit about it anywhere. Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans.
The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something.
@below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary. There is no chance democrats get a veto proof majority and I highly doubt that they'll take control over the senate Republicans have 44 seats that they're either keeping or are in deep red areas.
Because responding to the clown show isn't necessary. Public support for PP is unchanged and the public doesn't care.
And the congress already has rules for decorum and questioning which have been more strictly enforced in the past. The problem is that they are self policed(because who else is going to do it?) so it comes down to them to enforce the rules. And since the clown show has the majority, we get these dumb hearings because the clowns have zero respect for government.
|
On September 30 2015 05:23 Sermokala wrote:Why haven't liberals been putting the $50M a year number more? I mean the money that PP gets per year is $450m a year but only $50m of the is anyhow specific to them. Thats real small potatoes to close the government over and yet I don't see shit about it anywhere. Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans.
The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something.
@below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary. There is no chance democrats get a veto proof majority and I highly doubt that they'll take control over the senate Republicans have 44 seats that they're either keeping or are in deep red areas.
I'm going to make a longshot bet that the craziness we've been seeing is going to translate into some safe seats falling into play. In 2016, the Republicans are defending 24 seats to 10 for the Democrats. Given the shit response the Republican party has made on social issues recently and no charismatic face of the party, I think there's a chance the Democrats could pick some seats based on strong turnout and advantages from women and minorities.
Yeah, a veto proof majority is quite unlikely, but a swing to 55+ seats for the Democrats seems within the realm of reason.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 30 2015 03:45 zlefin wrote:
Is that really guilt by association? It looks more like questioning a possible conflict of interest.
it rises above mere questioning.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 30 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:
It is 100% conflict of interest. You would be hard press as an attorney to take a case against a client that was currently paying you in another case. Even Brookings agreed and had a rule preventing him from researching.
brookings got bullied and they didnt host him in the first place
|
On September 30 2015 05:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 03:51 Plansix wrote:
It is 100% conflict of interest. You would be hard press as an attorney to take a case against a client that was currently paying you in another case. Even Brookings agreed and had a rule preventing him from researching. brookings got bullied and they didnt host him in the first place
To mean called out in their conflict of interest. That shit wouldn't fly for a law firm and would throw a lot of shade on an expert witness. Also, Brookings can't get "bullied", they are not a kid on a playground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
