|
|
this is just something i thought i'd share about social safety nets and the entire impression that its for moochers. this was posted by a camp counselor of mine (from way back in like 8th grade). he's a really cool guy, and we've kept in touch.
Today, my insurance card arrived. I didn't expect to be as affected as I was. I mean, it's just an insurance card, right? But this is the first time I've earned my own private insurance. For the first time, I have the option of just going to see my doctor instead of hoping the weird pains don't come back, instead of praying I don't get ill this season.
But it's more than just the peace of mind. This is the culmination of a long, painful journey, from a salvage job of a life, living off public assistance for my mounting medical bills. I know what it is to bite your tongue, swallow your pride, and tell yourself it's just for a little while, you're not like those others using public funds for medical care, you just need it for a little bit longer while you get your life together.
So for those who say that people who use medicaid or school lunches or welfare or other public assistance programs are layabouts, you might be pleasantly surprised at how many of us want to contribute.
kind of not related, but i wanted to share it.
|
On October 12 2012 13:27 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 13:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 12 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:
The intellectual dishonesty around here never ceases to amaze me. There's a big difference between Romney interrupting the moderator to make points and Biden constantly talking over Ryan when it is clearly Ryan's opportunity to talk. There's a reason why everyone is wondering how Biden's antics played with the public when virtually no one was asking the same thing about Romney. Uh, I don't know what thread or station you were watching, but one of THE biggest questions after the presidential debate was whether Romney would be perceived as overaggressive. I think you yourself even mentioned it multiple times during your scoring. There is a substantive difference between what they did, though, and I would argue Biden's is the more defensible to be honest; fighting for every last word versus correcting your opponent at a perceived lie and displaying your real feelings? I'd rather the latter. Yes, I did wonder about it, but very people really cared, which kinda surprised me. Now, if Romney interrupted Obama 82 times (someone at the RNC did a count) like Biden interrupted Ryan tonight, you can bet there would be a scandal. People care more about the presidential debate. That said, if Romney was overly assertive while he cornered Obama, you'd have democrats crying and you'd have polls shifting toward the GOP because people don't give a crap about substance, they just want a good show. Nothing says "leader" like a guy who walks all over others. I'm not condoning it. It's a shame that Biden acted as he did, just like it's a shame Romney lied like a mofo. But they excel at what they do, even though they're essentially "playing the game" which makes them the most despicable con artists. And that, my friend, is the worthless populist battle that's plagued by a population of people who like reality TV.
You seem surprised. This is how these debates are. Its been like this for decades. The "winners" are not the people who got the better points across or the people who tell the truth the most (but lets be fair, Biden got his share of half-truths, misleading statements and outright lies too). These debates are all about memorable one liners, likability and the overall impression the candidate leaves with the viewers.
|
On October 12 2012 13:15 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:14 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:03 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:02 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:
The intellectual dishonesty around here never ceases to amaze me. There's a big difference between Romney interrupting the moderator to make points and Biden constantly talking over Ryan when it is clearly Ryan's opportunity to talk. There's a reason why everyone is wondering how Biden's antics played with the public when virtually no one was asking the same thing about Romney. Are you seriously that ignorant of the politics game? Seriously, I checked this thread a few hours ago and you were there whining about Biden's overreaching assertiveness, which is what people like and want to see - how can you blame him? On the other hand you have Ryan, who's blamed Obama for the closure of a GM plant that happened before Obama was in power, and has participated to a political campaign that was all about the disingenuous tainting of Obama's image, sometimes through some quote mining that was not concealed in the slightest. And People eat that shit up even though it's disgraceful and even insulting - but the cesspool of voters is not likely to care. It's like that on both sides, although you're very clearly on the right. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. Here we go with the intellectual bigotry based on whether you are right or left >_> You're right. I'm a bigot for mentioning that both sides use questionable tactics and that both sides are more blind to the questionable tactics used on their own side. Ironically, this is the case for xDaunt. I've seen that guy's posting for many months and he's not a moderate, at least not to my eye. Anyway, you deserve a slow clap. No, you're a bigot for saying: And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. xDaunt is not the model for being on the right, thank god. I was talking specifically about him. He specifically embodies intellectual dishonesty, on this thread especially, but on others too. He's been posting one liners that lack substance, as far as I can tell, for hours, complaining about Biden's performance which could be considered theatrical (politics - it's not new). When people respond to him, he just flails his arms around, talks about feces, and considers that he's been winning the argument. It's sad... He's been acting like a major hypocrite, probably because his buddy Ryan got bashed around.
Ah my bad, I thought you meant the "right" when you said his entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty >_>
|
On October 12 2012 13:31 Quintum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:29 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 13:25 sevencck wrote:On October 12 2012 13:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:19 Harbinger631 wrote:On October 12 2012 13:15 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:14 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:03 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Here we go with the intellectual bigotry based on whether you are right or left >_> You're right. I'm a bigot for mentioning that both sides use questionable tactics and that both sides are more blind to the questionable tactics used on their own side. Ironically, this is the case for xDaunt. I've seen that guy's posting for many months and he's not a moderate, at least not to my eye. Anyway, you deserve a slow clap. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. No, you're a bigot for saying: And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. xDaunt is not the model for being on the right, thank god. I was talking specifically about him. He specifically embodies intellectual dishonesty, on this thread especially, but on others too. That statement is pretty bad on your part. It basically implies that a conservative point of view is dependent on intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if that's what it looks like, poor wording. I'll change it around. xDaunt is a major and a ridiculously blatant example of intellectual dishonesty. His being on the right has no bearing on that. His hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is displayed as such. His willingness to call others intellectually dishonest in a string of low-content 1-liner postings, and when criticized he calls people's arguments "diarrhea" while ironically not responding to their criticisms of his position I'd say cognitive dissonance perhaps sums it up better than intellectual dishonesty. If I'm wrong about Romney winning, cognitive dissonance would probably be a good term. However, I think we need to spend some time thinking about what the term should be if Romney does win. Savant? Prophet? Someone go break out a thesaurus. I think we can have a fascinating discussion on how best to laud me when the time comes. You don't become a prophet when guessing the outcome of something which has odds close to that of a coinflip. Most sites where you bet real money have obama still around a 70 to 30 favorite, not quite a coinflip in my eyes
I KNEW someone would call me out on that I just knew it... I should have put a disclaimer.
Even if it was 90-10, or 99-1, "prophet", really? All the millions of people who have predicted it will start casting time-stop spells and vortexes everywhere.
|
Joe Biden made me proud tonight. Everyone expected Ryan to walk over him, and he held his ground and then some.
Good work Joe!
|
On October 12 2012 13:33 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:27 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 13:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 12 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:
The intellectual dishonesty around here never ceases to amaze me. There's a big difference between Romney interrupting the moderator to make points and Biden constantly talking over Ryan when it is clearly Ryan's opportunity to talk. There's a reason why everyone is wondering how Biden's antics played with the public when virtually no one was asking the same thing about Romney. Uh, I don't know what thread or station you were watching, but one of THE biggest questions after the presidential debate was whether Romney would be perceived as overaggressive. I think you yourself even mentioned it multiple times during your scoring. There is a substantive difference between what they did, though, and I would argue Biden's is the more defensible to be honest; fighting for every last word versus correcting your opponent at a perceived lie and displaying your real feelings? I'd rather the latter. Yes, I did wonder about it, but very people really cared, which kinda surprised me. Now, if Romney interrupted Obama 82 times (someone at the RNC did a count) like Biden interrupted Ryan tonight, you can bet there would be a scandal. People care more about the presidential debate. That said, if Romney was overly assertive while he cornered Obama, you'd have democrats crying and you'd have polls shifting toward the GOP because people don't give a crap about substance, they just want a good show. Nothing says "leader" like a guy who walks all over others. I'm not condoning it. It's a shame that Biden acted as he did, just like it's a shame Romney lied like a mofo. But they excel at what they do, even though they're essentially "playing the game" which makes them the most despicable con artists. And that, my friend, is the worthless populist battle that's plagued by a population of people who like reality TV. You seem surprised. This is how these debates are. Its been like this for decades. The "winners" are not the people who got the better points across or the people who tell the truth the most (but lets be fair, Biden got his share of half-truths, misleading statements and outright lies too). These debates are all about memorable one liners, likability and the overall impression the candidate leaves with the viewers.
Quite the contrary. My post was meant to sort of "expose" or explain it. I'm not surprised, I'm telling him that it's normal.
|
On October 12 2012 12:33 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone missed it, Biden managed to make another contradictory statement on Libya tonight. I really think that this Libya story is going to become a more dominant and damaging story over the next week or so.
i did not miss it, and to be honest, i think this particular comment might have ruined any gains they hoped to make with this "debate".
the administration isn't bleeding. they're gasping their last breaths. i don't know if anyone saw the Anderson Cooper interview with the mother of Sean Smith (one of the diplomats killed in the Libyan attacks) but it's horrible and it's probably the worst thing politically that could possibly happen to Obama right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/pat-smith-obama-sean-smith_n_1957715.html
the lies that were fed to this woman, and then to the American people, are just... unacceptable to say the least. or the Piers Morgan interview with Debbie Wasserman Schultz? i mean, if this is the narrative they are trying to run, then this isn't going to be a landslide for Romney. this is going to be a political slaughterhouse.
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz-on-the-initial-intell-on-the-u-s-embassy-attack-in-libya/?hpt=pm_mid
From tonights debate (for reference):
+ Show Spoiler +MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told --
MS. RADDATZ: By who?
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: -- by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.
perhaps more damning:
+ Show Spoiler + MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly -- we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.
clear lies by the administration concerning the timeline of the attack. and it sounds pretty terrible considering the fact that i and everyone else knew it was a terrorist attack by about 9:00 PM Pacific Time on 9/12. a good four days before Susan Rice went on 5 sunday morning talk shows and told us all that there was no intell that suggested it was a terrorist attack.
ugh... i would say i can't wait for the foreign policy debate, but this is just gonna be ugly. i hope Obama's new retirement house is nice.
|
On October 12 2012 13:30 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 13:25 sevencck wrote:On October 12 2012 13:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:19 Harbinger631 wrote:On October 12 2012 13:15 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:14 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:03 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:02 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Are you seriously that ignorant of the politics game? Seriously, I checked this thread a few hours ago and you were there whining about Biden's overreaching assertiveness, which is what people like and want to see - how can you blame him?
On the other hand you have Ryan, who's blamed Obama for the closure of a GM plant that happened before Obama was in power, and has participated to a political campaign that was all about the disingenuous tainting of Obama's image, sometimes through some quote mining that was not concealed in the slightest. And People eat that shit up even though it's disgraceful and even insulting - but the cesspool of voters is not likely to care.
It's like that on both sides, although you're very clearly on the right. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. Here we go with the intellectual bigotry based on whether you are right or left >_> You're right. I'm a bigot for mentioning that both sides use questionable tactics and that both sides are more blind to the questionable tactics used on their own side. Ironically, this is the case for xDaunt. I've seen that guy's posting for many months and he's not a moderate, at least not to my eye. Anyway, you deserve a slow clap. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. No, you're a bigot for saying: And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. xDaunt is not the model for being on the right, thank god. I was talking specifically about him. He specifically embodies intellectual dishonesty, on this thread especially, but on others too. That statement is pretty bad on your part. It basically implies that a conservative point of view is dependent on intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if that's what it looks like, poor wording. I'll change it around. xDaunt is a major and a ridiculously blatant example of intellectual dishonesty. His being on the right has no bearing on that. His hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is displayed as such. His willingness to call others intellectually dishonest in a string of low-content 1-liner postings, and when criticized he calls people's arguments "diarrhea" while ironically not responding to their criticisms of his position I'd say cognitive dissonance perhaps sums it up better than intellectual dishonesty. If I'm wrong about Romney winning, cognitive dissonance would probably be a good term. However, I think we need to spend some time thinking about what the term should be if Romney does win. Savant? Prophet? Someone go break out a thesaurus. I think we can have a fascinating discussion on how best to laud me when the time comes. Alright we'll call you a prophet if Ole Mitt wins this. Otherwise we get to call you a deranged screwball and we'll bring up your fail any time you try to predict anything. Deal?
Hell, might as well. If Romney manages to lose, I have no doubt that I'll be hearing about it.
|
What worries me most is how these "media outlets" try harder to appeal to certain demographics for ratings rather than focusing on productive journalism.
Seems like everything these days is about narrowing down demographics so they can sell to advertisers for premiums.
|
On October 12 2012 13:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 13:25 sevencck wrote:On October 12 2012 13:22 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:19 Harbinger631 wrote:On October 12 2012 13:15 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:14 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:03 kmillz wrote:On October 12 2012 13:02 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Are you seriously that ignorant of the politics game? Seriously, I checked this thread a few hours ago and you were there whining about Biden's overreaching assertiveness, which is what people like and want to see - how can you blame him?
On the other hand you have Ryan, who's blamed Obama for the closure of a GM plant that happened before Obama was in power, and has participated to a political campaign that was all about the disingenuous tainting of Obama's image, sometimes through some quote mining that was not concealed in the slightest. And People eat that shit up even though it's disgraceful and even insulting - but the cesspool of voters is not likely to care.
It's like that on both sides, although you're very clearly on the right. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. Here we go with the intellectual bigotry based on whether you are right or left >_> You're right. I'm a bigot for mentioning that both sides use questionable tactics and that both sides are more blind to the questionable tactics used on their own side. Ironically, this is the case for xDaunt. I've seen that guy's posting for many months and he's not a moderate, at least not to my eye. Anyway, you deserve a slow clap. And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. No, you're a bigot for saying: And you dare talk about intellectual dishonesty? I think your entire position can only exist because of intellectual dishonesty. xDaunt is not the model for being on the right, thank god. I was talking specifically about him. He specifically embodies intellectual dishonesty, on this thread especially, but on others too. That statement is pretty bad on your part. It basically implies that a conservative point of view is dependent on intellectual dishonesty. Sorry if that's what it looks like, poor wording. I'll change it around. xDaunt is a major and a ridiculously blatant example of intellectual dishonesty. His being on the right has no bearing on that. His hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is displayed as such. His willingness to call others intellectually dishonest in a string of low-content 1-liner postings, and when criticized he calls people's arguments "diarrhea" while ironically not responding to their criticisms of his position I'd say cognitive dissonance perhaps sums it up better than intellectual dishonesty. If I'm wrong about Romney winning, cognitive dissonance would probably be a good term. However, I think we need to spend some time thinking about what the term should be if Romney does win. Savant? Prophet? Someone go break out a thesaurus. I think we can have a fascinating discussion on how best to laud me when the time comes. You don't become a prophet when guessing the outcome of something which has odds close to that of a coinflip.
Why so serious? It's obvious he's joking.
|
I still think it's ridiculous that Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine the term "middle class", and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time for the campaign to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread.
|
On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread.
You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this:
it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1.
/I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment.
|
On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment.
Government worker unemployment???
What does that even mean?
You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker?
1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number.
Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%.
![[image loading]](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/public-private.png)
|
|
|
|
|
On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment.
I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture.
EDIT: The government workers thing might be called into question, but that may be based off of the number of people that used to work for the government that no longer do.
|
On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture.
Do you see the fox logo on the bottom left?
|
On October 12 2012 14:06 paralleluniverse wrote:What's the denominator?
Whatever the census employee wants it to be.
|
On October 12 2012 14:07 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 14:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread. You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. I dont see what is inaccurate about this picture. Do you see the fox logo on the bottom left?
Oh, so it came from some other news source and somebody changed it to a fox logo? Or are you just making a jab at fox for some reason?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
like, if you are a government worker, doesn't that mean you already work. wot
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen9777D716-1BE3-2F15-D79B-085DE4572DAD.jpg&width=600)
