|
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. |
House GOP legislation to delay Obamacare's individual mandate by five years would cause a spike in health insurance premiums and 13 million fewer Americans insured, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The bill is set to come up for a vote on Friday, a Republican leadership aide said.
A delay of the mandate until 2019 would save $170 billion and use the money to fund a $138 billion "doc fix" that avoids the prospect of large physician payment cuts set to take effect on April 1, the budget office said.
It would cause insurance premiums to "increase by 10 percent to 20 percent" come 2018, CBO projected. It would lead to one million fewer people on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Plan, one million fewer people with employer-based coverage and seven million fewer with coverage from the Obamacare exchanges.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Tuesday rejected the idea. Delaying the individual mandate has been a nonstarter for the White House.
Source
|
On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have.
I think DEB has hit the nail on the head.
What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview."
But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost.
If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine.
Anyway, just my two cents.
|
On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost.If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents.
What's subtle about garbage? At least you laughed at it. It probably took him 10 minutes to film and got him millions of views on the ACA. Sounds pragmatic to me.
|
On March 13 2014 04:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost.If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents. What's subtle about garbage? At least you laughed at it. It probably took him 10 minutes to film and got him millions of views on the ACA. Sounds pragmatic to me.
I think its effectiveness is why he's so upset.
|
I mean the difference between an interview and a wisecrack.
I think its effectiveness is why he's so upset.
Nah, I had no idea if it was effective or not before I made my initial post.
I was upset because it's degrading to the office he holds. Obama: Celebrity-in-Chief.
Edit: I prefer the descriptor "mildly annoyed."
|
Obama's always been a community outreach guy. It's just that now the community he's reaching out to is ~300,000,000.
If you want to see degrading to the office he holds see Clinton copping a bj in the oval office or this:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg)
|
SolarCity and Best Buy have just announced a deal allowing customers to get low-cost and low-hassle solar power for their homes.
It’s what’s called a third party leasing agreement. Rather than purchasing a solar array outright, they lease the system from the provider — SolarCity, in this case. It’s just that the system is installed on the roof of the homeowner. The benefit for the customer is they don’t have to worry about installation and maintenance — the provider handles that — and there are no big upfront costs. The customer just pays the provider a set amount each month for the electricity, and that cost is usually slightly lower than the going market rate.
Meanwhile, as the provider, SolarCity gets a guaranteed revenue stream for whatever period of time the lease agreement covers. Partnering with Best Buy allows SolarCity to make use of the chain’s already-existing network of stores to reach as many customers as possible.
Upfront costs, maintenance, permits, and installation are among the major logistical hurdles that often prevent people from taking advantage of solar power for their homes. A firm with assets and logistical capabilities like SolarCity is much better positioned to take care of those problems, creating a much smoother process for the customer. Many people have the wherewithal to purchase their own solar systems that they own outright, but that model is not for everyone.
While residential solar has grown more slowly than utility-scale installations, its growth has been steady. And third party leasing and deals like this are a big reason why.
Source
|
I have no idea what DEB tried to say in that long paragraph. Can you parse it out? Try explaining how people making things more efficient and more useful WASN'T an effort to reduce the amount of work people have to put in to their lives.
|
On March 13 2014 04:59 Introvert wrote:I mean the difference between an interview and a wisecrack. Nah, I had no idea if it was effective or not before I made my initial post. I was upset because it's degrading to the office he holds. Obama: Celebrity-in-Chief. Edit: I prefer the descriptor "mildly annoyed."
Shouldn't it's effectiveness be a huge bullet point though?
Also I think everyone comparing how Obama delivers a message to how Reagan delivers a message is stupid. Obama has the internet and lives in the internet age, Reagan didn't. Of course their deliveries are going to be different and a joke in the political climate of 2014 is obviously going to be different than a joke in the political climate of the 80's. You might as well say Obama is stupid for not delivering his speeches by carrier pigeon like George Washington did.
|
Norway28703 Posts
On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost. If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents.
I actually also think the nuke russia joke is funny, and I have no problems admitting that Reagan was a funny, witty guy who was good at speaking. But joking about destroying the world is not presidential, and it is less presidential than what Obama did here, it's less presidential than Clinton's blowjob, and that was the critique you gave towards Obama; that he wasn't behaving presidential and that even Reagan managed to crack jokes and stay presidential. DEB to me was more saying that Reagan's lack of "presidentialness" is part of his appeal - and that's something I can certainly understand and sympathize with. However, it's probably part of what makes Reagan such a controversial figure, and whether you approve of him, and the same goes for Obama, is determined by whether you agree with his politics. If you do, you'll find these stunts entertaining, if you don't, then you'll consider them further proof of how he's unfitting for the job.
|
Actually I was saying that the reaction to the joke was funnier than the joke itself, I think it was an unpresidential moment. The liberal commentariat blew a gasket over it which was funny.
But you shouldn't make a joke like that to a crowd waiting for you to start your speech. Make some joke about Russia that doesn't involve the bombers are taking off in five minutes.
|
On March 13 2014 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost. If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents. I actually also think the nuke russia joke is funny, and I have no problems admitting that Reagan was a funny, witty guy who was good at speaking. But joking about destroying the world is not presidential, and it is less presidential than what Obama did here, it's less presidential than Clinton's blowjob, and that was the critique you gave towards Obama; that he wasn't behaving presidential and that even Reagan managed to crack jokes and stay presidential. DEB to me was more saying that Reagan's lack of "presidentialness" is part of his appeal - and that's something I can certainly understand and sympathize with. However, it's probably part of what makes Reagan such a controversial figure, and whether you approve of him, and the same goes for Obama, is determined by whether you agree with his politics. If you do, you'll find these stunts entertaining, if you don't, then you'll consider them further proof of how he's unfitting for the job.
I'm more forgiving of unknown hot mics than I am of pre-planned idiocy. Same with one/two line jokes. That's all.
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
Moreover, my comment about Reagan was not in reference to any particular joke- I didn't mean to defend the "bombing in 4 minutes" thing, you brought that up. I was making a general statement about being funny while still appearing presidential.
I chuckled/smiled a bit during the Obama spot, but that doesn't mean I think the president should have done it.
|
On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time.
And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'.
|
On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost. If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents. I actually also think the nuke russia joke is funny, and I have no problems admitting that Reagan was a funny, witty guy who was good at speaking. But joking about destroying the world is not presidential, and it is less presidential than what Obama did here, it's less presidential than Clinton's blowjob, and that was the critique you gave towards Obama; that he wasn't behaving presidential and that even Reagan managed to crack jokes and stay presidential. DEB to me was more saying that Reagan's lack of "presidentialness" is part of his appeal - and that's something I can certainly understand and sympathize with. However, it's probably part of what makes Reagan such a controversial figure, and whether you approve of him, and the same goes for Obama, is determined by whether you agree with his politics. If you do, you'll find these stunts entertaining, if you don't, then you'll consider them further proof of how he's unfitting for the job. I'm more forgiving of unknown hot mics than I am of pre-planned idiocy. Same with one/two line jokes. That's all. There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous cases of when a president (from either party) made a joke.
|
On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'.
yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here!
idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV.
How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation.
For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that.
Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded.
The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear.
|
On March 13 2014 05:49 Roe wrote:
I have no idea what DEB tried to say in that long paragraph. Can you parse it out? Try explaining how people making things more efficient and more useful WASN'T an effort to reduce the amount of work people have to put in to their lives.
You were talking about a culture that valued hard work now it's about whether mechanization made for less physical labor in the end?
No wonder you're confused about what I wrote. In three sentences, America had and has a culture that values hard work and a lack of respect or appreciation of the worth of hard work is mostly a product of pop culture, in other words entertainment. The service economy provided opportunity for less physical labor and did not devalue hard work, whatever hard work may actually mean. What you said contained two typical Marxist tropes about capitalists in general and Americans in particular that has also been expressed by other foreigners America beat.
|
On March 13 2014 02:29 farvacola wrote:
Cultural values trend towards the paradoxical or hypocritical when given scrutiny.
Your sentences are always hilarious. It's like if you are mixing the words randomly and then you try to look smart. But your sentences have no meaning.
There is nothing paradoxical or hypocritical about "cultural values". BECAUSE THE VALUES OF THE GUYS AT THE TOP ARE NOT THE SAME THAN THE VALUES OF THE GUYS AT THE BOTTOM. And that's why they are more "valuable" (lol).
And that's the same fucking thing with culture. Different cultures for different folks.
And that's why you are just another clueless American. The only country that went from barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization. If only you and Sam actually tried to read some proper books once in a while...
At least Sam was kinda funny and reasonably smart.
User was warned for this post
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how u gonna live when you get so mad about obama making some jokes.
|
On March 13 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 05:49 Roe wrote:
I have no idea what DEB tried to say in that long paragraph. Can you parse it out? Try explaining how people making things more efficient and more useful WASN'T an effort to reduce the amount of work people have to put in to their lives. You were talking about a culture that valued hard work now it's about whether mechanization made for less physical labor in the end? No wonder you're confused about what I wrote. In three sentences, America had and has a culture that values hard work and a lack of respect or appreciation of the worth of hard work is mostly a product of pop culture, in other words entertainment. The service economy provided opportunity for less physical labor and did not devalue hard work, whatever hard work may actually mean. What you said contained two typical Marxist tropes about capitalists in general and Americans in particular that has also been expressed by other foreigners America beat.
Marxist ? Please... If you are talking about the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall, you didn't understand it and you should think about it deeper, and confront it to factual evidences.
If not, I don't understand why you feel the desire to talk about something you don't necessarily master nor comprehend. And at what point Marx actual talk specifically about the US ? lol
On March 13 2014 06:51 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 02:29 farvacola wrote:
Cultural values trend towards the paradoxical or hypocritical when given scrutiny. Your sentences are always hilarious. It's like if you are mixing the words randomly and then you try to look smart. But your sentences have no meaning. There is nothing paradoxical or hypocritical about "cultural values". BECAUSE THE VALUES OF THE GUYS AT THE TOP ARE NOT THE SAME THAN THE VALUES OF THE GUYS AT THE BOTTOM. And that's why they are more "valuable" (lol). And that's the same fucking thing with culture. Different cultures for different folks. And that's why you are just another clueless American. The only country that went from barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization. If only you and Sam actually tried to read some proper books once in a while... At least Sam was kinda funny and reasonably smart.
I don't understands why you respond with such tone...
|
Boblion is just so refreshingly French...
And yeah, plus Marx is as ambivalent to work as a value as americans, (cf Arendt The Human Condition Chapter 3, probably no a "proper" book though, you guys should read it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
