I remember the anger, they were yelling about "death panels" and other nonsense instilled fear from right wing propoganda that the democrats foolishly ignored thinking that people would a) know better, and b) realize the results were actually good later and be happy.
They were very wrong on both counts, you can't just ignore propaganda no matter how wrong it is, it just has to be loud and pervasive. Once a lie has been accepted as truth, it is very hard to convince people otherwise, especially if the original liars say they are lying about lying. See: Confirmation Bias.
Hell you're still arguing it like its real. You probably think its our "huge national debt" that's keeping our recovery from happening, the both the stimulus and financial system bailouts were "horrible boondogles for special interests" and didn't keep things from becoming MUCH worse (as an aside, i think it was HORRIBLE that we were forced to bail out greedy bankers - that was a failure of regulation and anti-trust/monopoly policies, no entity or set of entities should be allowed to sufficiently pool their resources to endanger the very economy of the nation/world), and that significant cuts to spending (without any vague notion of what to cut) will fix everything, oh and tax cuts for everyone because government wastes all money unless it directly benefits you.
Clearly you grasped it from right wing propoganda.
The message sent by voters was that things should have been fixed faster, we don't care why the world is broken, we just want it fixed, and if you can't do it, we'll vote someone else in, who at least is different than you are, and claims to want to fix things, even though they show no actual proof or even plans to do it that make sense, they do however say everything is your fault, and that makes sense, since supposedly you had unilateral power and its still broken.
The goal with that wouldn't be for you to take it all in, the focus would still be at singular points, or on an overall scene. The goal would be the feeling of complete immersion in the movie, which would be *amazing*.
Honestly, I doubt it, if he's anything like his father. He seems very "This is what I'm going to do, no matter how I sound, its what I think needs to happen". I don't expect now that he's in, he'll play very well with either party when they run afoul of anything he feels moderately strong about.
He has seemed to me like one of the few actual tea partiers, as opposed to republicans using the tea party to get votes.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see him filibuster the Republicans himself once or twice, if just to make a point.
I never said people aren't thinking they're voting for their interests, I said that they were voting against their own interests. I did not question their intent, as I would assume no one would knowingly vote against their own interests.
I don't know what magical hidden "agenda" you're talking about. They did exactly what they said they were going to try to do when they were campaigning to be voted into office. It just sounds like you're repeating right wing propoganda with all this talk of "agenda", "Obama/Reid/Pelosi" etc, especially using the term RINO.
Also, to claim that representatives that break from the "party" on votes (in either party) and actually think / act for themselves on their own are somehow caving in... Yeah you're part of the problem with our government right now.
I'm just tired of rep's voting with the party without question, instead of voting on what they believe in. Our rep system was designed for that, if we wanted party based voting, we would have designed for it.
Unfortunately, its ultimately their constituents fault, for purging "traitors" to the party, instead of recognizing that as a feature, not a fault. You're voting for the individual reps, not just a meaningless figurehead of X group, stop treating it as such.
Amazing that they matched very nearly the projections from way before the discussion began, about how the previous administration and congress had started a cost explosion...
I'm listening, what compromise was ever offered to the stated goal of expanding insurance coverage to more Americans by the Republicans?
And please don't start on about buying across state lines, that had nothing to do with expanding coverage, it was about cherry picking less strict states to sell insurance *from* (i.e. skirting state rights to regulate insurance, something I would have thought the Republicans would be all for - keeping things local and out of the evil Fed).
Since it was already pretty much ruined, they just watched and enjoyed their profits mostly, and yelled "No" and "traitor" at anyone who tried to take their profits back, or fix what they had done.
Actually, I would say that's (voting on economic issues) a very good reason to vote, and the social issues that have no place in Congress shouldn't be cause (like religious beliefs about stem cell research, abortion, restrictions of rights of human beings that believe differently than you (muslims, mexicans, gays), etc).
I may disagree *wholeheartedly* that the current republicans are any kind of fiscally responsible for anyone but themselves and their rich friends, but I absolutely support *you* voting for them because *you* do.
Slashdot Mirror
One minor correction: it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, that chose not to accept the $54K verdict.
Yeah, it was amazing to me until the moment when I thought "Ewww, they got religion in my Sci-Fi" and totally ruined it for me, completely.
Even then, most of us aren't counted due to the incredibly idiotic DVR policies.
Sure, here you go:
http://tinyurl.com/39kmp33
Apologies, I meant to say
Ok, what other option is there, other than single payer, and refusing "preexisting conditions" that allows the insurance companies to survive?
Ok, what other option is there, other than single payer, and not refusing "preexisting conditions" that allows the insurance companies to survive?
I remember the anger, they were yelling about "death panels" and other nonsense instilled fear from right wing propoganda that the democrats foolishly ignored thinking that people would a) know better, and b) realize the results were actually good later and be happy.
They were very wrong on both counts, you can't just ignore propaganda no matter how wrong it is, it just has to be loud and pervasive. Once a lie has been accepted as truth, it is very hard to convince people otherwise, especially if the original liars say they are lying about lying. See: Confirmation Bias.
Hell you're still arguing it like its real. You probably think its our "huge national debt" that's keeping our recovery from happening, the both the stimulus and financial system bailouts were "horrible boondogles for special interests" and didn't keep things from becoming MUCH worse (as an aside, i think it was HORRIBLE that we were forced to bail out greedy bankers - that was a failure of regulation and anti-trust/monopoly policies, no entity or set of entities should be allowed to sufficiently pool their resources to endanger the very economy of the nation/world), and that significant cuts to spending (without any vague notion of what to cut) will fix everything, oh and tax cuts for everyone because government wastes all money unless it directly benefits you.
Clearly you grasped it from right wing propoganda.
The message sent by voters was that things should have been fixed faster, we don't care why the world is broken, we just want it fixed, and if you can't do it, we'll vote someone else in, who at least is different than you are, and claims to want to fix things, even though they show no actual proof or even plans to do it that make sense, they do however say everything is your fault, and that makes sense, since supposedly you had unilateral power and its still broken.
As I said earlier, the mandate was a compromise with conservatives, as much as they claim none were made.
The goal with that wouldn't be for you to take it all in, the focus would still be at singular points, or on an overall scene. The goal would be the feeling of complete immersion in the movie, which would be *amazing*.
Honestly, I doubt it, if he's anything like his father. He seems very "This is what I'm going to do, no matter how I sound, its what I think needs to happen". I don't expect now that he's in, he'll play very well with either party when they run afoul of anything he feels moderately strong about.
He has seemed to me like one of the few actual tea partiers, as opposed to republicans using the tea party to get votes.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see him filibuster the Republicans himself once or twice, if just to make a point.
I never said people aren't thinking they're voting for their interests, I said that they were voting against their own interests. I did not question their intent, as I would assume no one would knowingly vote against their own interests.
I don't know what magical hidden "agenda" you're talking about. They did exactly what they said they were going to try to do when they were campaigning to be voted into office. It just sounds like you're repeating right wing propoganda with all this talk of "agenda", "Obama/Reid/Pelosi" etc, especially using the term RINO.
Also, to claim that representatives that break from the "party" on votes (in either party) and actually think / act for themselves on their own are somehow caving in... Yeah you're part of the problem with our government right now.
I'm just tired of rep's voting with the party without question, instead of voting on what they believe in. Our rep system was designed for that, if we wanted party based voting, we would have designed for it.
Unfortunately, its ultimately their constituents fault, for purging "traitors" to the party, instead of recognizing that as a feature, not a fault. You're voting for the individual reps, not just a meaningless figurehead of X group, stop treating it as such.
A) Nixon lied about being involved in a break in, a felony.
B) Clinton lied about a personal affair, and didn't explicitly lie, there never should have even been any investigation.
Amazing that they matched very nearly the projections from way before the discussion began, about how the previous administration and congress had started a cost explosion...
You're one of the very few people I've ever heard stand up for that, and I applaud you (it's absolutely true). I'm guessing you're in the HC industry?
That's because it wasn't an attempt to fix insurance, but to give insurance companies the ability to avoid state regulation.
In his defense, they did have one idea, but it was a thinly veiled attempt to make situation even worse: buying insurance across state lines.
Sure it would drop costs, so would removing catalytic converters, restrictions on Usury, etc.
I'm listening, what compromise was ever offered to the stated goal of expanding insurance coverage to more Americans by the Republicans?
And please don't start on about buying across state lines, that had nothing to do with expanding coverage, it was about cherry picking less strict states to sell insurance *from* (i.e. skirting state rights to regulate insurance, something I would have thought the Republicans would be all for - keeping things local and out of the evil Fed).
The mandate was a bone *for* the republicans...
Anyone who says "economy" and "republicans" who doesn't make over $400k anually individually, is voting against their intrests.
Since it was already pretty much ruined, they just watched and enjoyed their profits mostly, and yelled "No" and "traitor" at anyone who tried to take their profits back, or fix what they had done.
Yeah, punishing insurance companies for cherry picking clients DURING their terms isn't reform at all...
Disagreement is one thing, but please, either stop lying, or find actual sources of information that aren't.
Actually, I would say that's (voting on economic issues) a very good reason to vote, and the social issues that have no place in Congress shouldn't be cause (like religious beliefs about stem cell research, abortion, restrictions of rights of human beings that believe differently than you (muslims, mexicans, gays), etc).
I may disagree *wholeheartedly* that the current republicans are any kind of fiscally responsible for anyone but themselves and their rich friends, but I absolutely support *you* voting for them because *you* do.