that doesn't mean you have a point...you have *half* a point...your argument has only one leg to stand on...
Every barrel the United States doesn't buy from country A is a barrel that country A gets to sell instead of Iran.
wrong...you are ignoring important distinctions leading to a reductive argument
the global energy industry is not like AP Economics...the concept of supply/demand you illustrate above is about on the level of trying to talk quantum entanglement by commenting that "force equals mass * acceleration fool, therefore quantum computing is truely quantum"
First off, oil producing countries collude with each other to control global demand. Iran is part of more than one quasi-political union of oil producing non-Nato countries.
The US can import oil from certain suppliers for very cheap compared to others...
Fracking does not produce the oil that becomes gasoline. Almost all discussion of "oil prices" is statistically referring to oil that leads to gasoline...the "price at the pump"
I can acknowledge that **the perception** that US fracking has reduced global demand has affected commodities traders far down the chain...how much of an effect? is it salient? TFA sure didn't tell us
We need to just call out this garbage instead of making (correct) counterpoints...I'm not directing this at you, teeples, but all/. peoples...
it's really ok to say, "fracking didn't cause this...TFA is bullshit"...even though...**technically** one might be able to demonstrate some tangential effect...
the article is misleading 100%...its a 'lie'...or it is an attempt to craft a greater lie
it's possible, I can acknowledge that for sure...somewhere far down the chain, I'm sure that public perception that fracking in the US has reduced demand significantly has affected commodities trading...
you're coming from the right place, so I don't mind talking a bit of semantics, but this topic is easily trolled...
I agree with your general sentiment certainly, however we can look at history and see that our diplomatic success with Iran has *nothing* to do with fracking.
This is a PR propaganda article.
Iran has been a Banana Republic for global oligarch companies like Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Gasprom, etc...
anti-democratic dictators were installed by special operations work who would give favorable oil trading to the colonial oligarches...
it has happened **OVER and OVER** through history....
this is about the Arab Spring, the rise of democracy, and the triumph of US diplomacy in the region
I addressed the "more conservative" thing above to another commenter...the definition of 'conservative' in those studies and 'conservative' in US politics is **very** different and completely unfit for comparison...
It measures 'conservative' in the sense of risk taking...like would you cash some of your kid's college fund to invest in a stock tip from a trusted friend?
younger...more likely older...less likely
That doesn't mean that getting older makes you favor policies that protect companies like M$ and become pro-life!!!!
Those studies mean 'conservative' in risk-taking...not politics and policy!!!!
also, those studies are global-oriented with their language and issues...
France can be considered "socially conservative" by the definition and normalization those tests use...
American "social conservatives" and French "social conservatives" disagree on virtually every issue a US conservative finds important...guns, abortion, civil rights, nudity/porn, religion...
those studies are not at all informative to this discussion &/. definitely has had an uptick in paid commenters (look at UID #'s & it tells the whole story for you)
they measure **self reported attitudes** and have not been replicated b/c...they're not worth a researcher's time...
I'm in my mid-30s now and there is no way any of my older geek friends have gotten **more Republican** in their personal philosophy...from pro-choice to pro-life? if anything you can see a measurable move towards atheism...
You may argue that more geeks either *dont' vote* or vote for a 'libertarian' than previously and that I would grant you...but there's not chance in hell educated people are becoming more conservative
browse at -1 and have a look at the comments...i mod often and you're right/. is *definitely* more genuine than most.../. is crawling with paid Public Relations staffers (Fox News is def. not the only one to do this), paid commentors, and maybe even an actual experimental bot (APK...)
They ruin the top of the comments on anything to do with Snowden, the oil industry, and the Trayvon Martin case type stuff....techies havent' gotten *more* conservative in the last 10 years...but/. comments on average have...it's because of PR and paid commentors
We *genuine* humans need to be more discerning than ever...there are people, much like us, whose entire job is to create false perceptions on things like/.
Its kind of important, for you know, idea neutrality that we all be smarter, respond to only comments that are value added and of course...and I need this advice as much as anyone...
I know we can't go around coining phrases willy-nilly but I think that article is right on...
I can't stand Brett Ratner or his films but if he is iconic enough to warrant naming the Effect of [damaging sales by disparaging own products] after him, them I think we should consider "Abrams Effect"
He screwed up Trek films & now he's set to screw of Star Wars too
I'm a 'trekkie' i guess secretly, but i can appreciate Star Wars camp factor/space opera thing for what it is (and pretend George Lucas doesn't exist)/. tends towards Star Wars fans, but even if you hate Trek you can see how Abrams ruined Gene Roddenberry's concept of futurism. It was indeed revolutionary (& if he wanted to Roddenberry could have started a Scientology-like cult that ppl would buy into, IMHO) because of how he used a silly sci-fi program to expose very relevant problems in society...
Star Wars isn't like that...but understand my point is that **the appeal** of Star Wars, beyond the effects and cool space battles, is something complex and not easily replicated. It's a fine esoteric line that the film has to walk, given Lucas's legacy, but it can be done, and done well IMHO. J.J. Abrams is definitely not the one to do it.
Abram's M.O. is to take a beloved cult concept and remove all the uniqueness from it while simultaneously using high-level marketing to give the impression that his is a 'fan's filmmaker' who will preserve the unique complexities of a work while making it new visually.
J.J. Abrams is a hack.
I believe his filthy way is deserving of its own 'Effect' moniker. What do you think?
see, my dad is an old electronics guy from the Navy and he **loves** playing the Tiger Woods golf video game on the internet w/ his buddies all over the world...
he doesn't give a shit about what plaform, what system, w/e...he just wants to play Tiger Woods Golf in co/op mode...
I had to set him up w/ an Xbox Live account and teach him now to navigate around M$'s bullshit marketing on the Xbox Live Marketplace
He would hate to have to switch systems and would endure a fair ammount of bother to avoid it...
however, if the majority of his friends switch to PS4 then it's a foregone conclusion he will get a PS4 as well!!!!
thanks for that...I was in a politics tweeting phase and I tried to get a conversation started about Greenwald's background, b/c I used to work in news (at a low level staffer, but I was at a network and later was web editor for a newspaper)
The way Greenwald operated bothered me...it seemed he didn't care at all about **protecting his source**
That's journalism 101...the USA has well understood laws that can, **if the journalist is willing to go to jail for 2-6 months** protect a source of a news story...see, Congress can subpeona you to testify, the journalist pleas the 5th, then they have the right to jail the journalist for as long as they think it might be coorcive for the journalist to give up their source.
By law it can't be more than a year, and almost always ends around 4 months...
It's rare but it has happened...it sucks for those months, but as a journalist, if you go through that whole process you come out a hero with a guaranteed book deal!
It requires all parties...the leaker, the journalist, newpaper editor, and a good lawyer...and the information leaked has to be highly relevant and...you know...true...
but it can and does happen...Greenwald didn't approach this at all like a professional and no one ever talked about it!
as in, "Marissa Meyer is going to 'Elop' Yahoo if it kills her"
or "J.J. Abrahms had better not 'Elop' the franchise..."
yep...
TFA headline actually made me LOL: "Stephen Elop Would Pull a Nokia On Microsoft"
Right?
I think M$ is going to undergo even more headline grabbing changes and someone spinning off a major division or brand (like Xbox) is exactly the kind of way this would happen.
Did you see the article on Playstation 4? I have never bought a PS (from the beginning IMHO it was a lesser nintendo but i'm old school like that...) and I'm not any kind of gamer fanboi but the PS4 looks badass all the way around. It's going to be $100 cheaper on launch and the 3rd Party game situation will be killer
Xbox is M$'s next casualty...seriously...
But yeah, to get back off-topic...let's make "Elop" a verb meaning to abandon a company's popular proven products in favor of an over-designed unusable system, which causes the company to lose sales & eventually be purchased by a competing interest.
You present a good defense of the need to track this...
But what about just because it's good to figure things out?!?!
Curiosity drives our evolution now...at least it seems that way...I'm not saying we give out a $10 billion NSA grant to find out what these 'tails' are (my guess is that all comets have multiple tails, this one just imaged right and was of the right type for us to see)...
I'm saying, from a philosophical standpoint, science for science sake is a good human endeavor
I am against both Google and the NSA's data collection policies, but your vitriol is weirdly misplaced
See, from an engineering and legal perspective, the data the NSA and Google gather are not, as you say
they are gathering the exact same information, and unlike the NSA, don't have any rules restricting their use.
Now, there is so much wrong with this, but in the greater sense you and I share alot of common ground. We probably agree overall...
No, what bothers me is how uninformed your opinions are...it's distracting. You need to learn a bit about IT engineering, networking, telcommunications, and things like the Patriot Act.
I'm not saying take a college class...just wikipedia...
read the wikipedia on the Patriot Act...then read the wikipedia on T-com engineering. Maybe have a look at how a big data center works from a technical perspective. Wired, etc. have good articles available.
Really....read up. You're right in your heart but you come off as a conversational succubus.....your kind of trolling, the kind that is right at heart, really can derail a value-added discussion
Yes, the NSA does use Google's data...there may be overlap in the raw data...but that is not at all near what you are babbling about....READ UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF
You may be **grammatically** correct that Google **technically** is tracking your location not your purchases...
But you're giving Google a free pass here:
Basically, Google is stalking you, nothing new there.
"meh, privacy is dead" right? right??
wrong.
Privacy rights, and Google's accountability to them are as alive as **we the people demand**
We don't have to accept that new tech features must invariably require chipping away at our privacy until Google has enough data to extrapolate anything they want....
You must understand that Google ***IS DEFINITELY*** intending to track people's purchases using this tracking. They do what is known in the industry as "data analysis" where you compare two or more data sets that overlap to fill in missing pieces of information.
Google doesn't need to have access to your financial transactions to track your spending habits.
If you see that as an violation of privacy you don't have to just pretend "privacy is dead"....you can **actually** do something about it...it's called democracy...
about Google Car and Tesla...I agree that communters would definitely want the option to put the car on 'autopilot'...or to have a 'Tesla' electric...
what I think we disagree on is if those two things are (or will be) available and affordable for people who are not independently wealthy
we can probably find common ground, but I guess my greater point that I think most people don't "get" is that Google or Tesla could/should be competing with GM, Ford, etc...
i feel like we are capable of doing alot better....businesspeople are so limited in their thinking, IMHO
But, the average family income was also $119k in 2011.
news for you pal, thats solidly middle class...unless you only have one income, kids, car payment, house payment...**then** you're more towards "lower middle/working class" on that income
i know the Virginian suburbs of Fairfax County well...your prefab McMansion and SUV don't mean you're rich
wake up and smell the financial crisis...you are not as rich as you think you are....and the truly rich have **100x more than you**...more than you'll make in 20 years...that's today's income disparity
bah! I swear...people blame the poor for bad mortgages but its the really the suburban "keeping up with the Jones" mentality that caused those bad mortages
It was shelved early in the design process because the Democrats never had any real intentions of passing it.....same as Barack "any plan I sign must contain a public option" Obama
So was it the Dem's in Congress who didn't want it? Or was it Obama?
It seems to me you're putting the blame on Obama for something Dem's in Congress caved on...
You're telling me, if the Dem's in Congress had passed ACA with a "public option" that Obama would have **vetoed** it??? I don't buy it...
It's more likely that **Obama** wanted the "public option" but the Dem's in Congress (like the pussies they are) caved and tried to be "bipartisan" with the GOP...to their failure...
Back to GP's conspiracy theory....NO Obama did not *want* the ACA to fail...but he knew it would without a public option...that doesn't mean he **wants** it to fail...
It's like a just a dumb drunk friend at a party. He wants to jump over the bonfire....you warn him it's too far to jump but he won't listen....he's too drunk to physically restrain w/o a scuffle, so you warn him and let physics take its course. Did you **want** your drunk buddy to fall in the fire? NO...you tried your best to prevent it....but you still **videotape his attempt on your phone!!!** that doesn't mean you **made** him fall in the fire!
Obama can't phsyically forces Dem's in Congress to have a spine and be professional...and he can't trash the shitty version of the ACA that they passed either...
I'm so glad you mentioned the 'single-payer' thing...I don't think it was a 'conspiracy' at all...why need a conspiracy? Obama had just won election and had a majority in both House/Senate...
. It was just a means to an end - single payer.
I completely support socialized medicine (just like how the US has a 'socialist' water system), and I have been freaking out at even the Progressives because no one is talking about the Single Payer system...
But even more than that, I'm at a loss to explain what happened to the **PUBLIC OPTION**
Liberals, Democrats, and news aware others should remember the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. It was essentially between Obama and Hillary.
There were debates...Rachel Maddow interviews...Daily Kos blog postings...etc etc etc...ah 2008....
One of the **major** dividing issues, both candidates agreed, was their approach to 'health care reform'
Both wanted to 'socialize' it, but Hillary wanted her more insurance-industry favored (and Romney/Mass approved) 'health exchange' with no public option. Obama differentiated himself precisely because he was in favor of a public option. Obama won....then he won again. Then it went to Congress to make the bill for Obama to sign.
WTF went wrong?
Why wasn't a Public Option included in the original bill, and why is no one talking about it now???
agree or disagree...be you 'libertarian' or actual admitted Republican...I'm not making a point of contention...just asking...anyone...wtf happened to the public option???
Slashdot Mirror
Oil is a commodity. The sky is blue.
that doesn't mean you have a point...you have *half* a point...your argument has only one leg to stand on...
wrong...you are ignoring important distinctions leading to a reductive argument
the global energy industry is not like AP Economics...the concept of supply/demand you illustrate above is about on the level of trying to talk quantum entanglement by commenting that "force equals mass * acceleration fool, therefore quantum computing is truely quantum"
First off, oil producing countries collude with each other to control global demand. Iran is part of more than one quasi-political union of oil producing non-Nato countries.
The US can import oil from certain suppliers for very cheap compared to others...
Fracking does not produce the oil that becomes gasoline. Almost all discussion of "oil prices" is statistically referring to oil that leads to gasoline...the "price at the pump"
I can acknowledge that **the perception** that US fracking has reduced global demand has affected commodities traders far down the chain...how much of an effect? is it salient? TFA sure didn't tell us
We need to just call out this garbage instead of making (correct) counterpoints...I'm not directing this at you, teeples, but all /. peoples...
it's really ok to say, "fracking didn't cause this...TFA is bullshit"...even though...**technically** one might be able to demonstrate some tangential effect...
the article is misleading 100%...its a 'lie'...or it is an attempt to craft a greater lie
it's possible, I can acknowledge that for sure...somewhere far down the chain, I'm sure that public perception that fracking in the US has reduced demand significantly has affected commodities trading...
you're coming from the right place, so I don't mind talking a bit of semantics, but this topic is easily trolled...
I agree with your general sentiment certainly, however we can look at history and see that our diplomatic success with Iran has *nothing* to do with fracking.
This is a PR propaganda article.
Iran has been a Banana Republic for global oligarch companies like Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Gasprom, etc...
anti-democratic dictators were installed by special operations work who would give favorable oil trading to the colonial oligarches...
it has happened **OVER and OVER** through history....
this is about the Arab Spring, the rise of democracy, and the triumph of US diplomacy in the region
fracking has **nothing** to do with it
Misleading article...the whole context is wrong...
First off, the collusion in the oil industry is not fully known, so we are just guessing when we talk about 'global supply'
2nd, the US does not get its oil from Iran...our demand/supply is tagentially not directly related
3rd and most importantly for this PR propaganda of a TFA: It was a **decrease in demand** not fracking!
If the US automakers hadn't **killed the electric car** there would have been at least an **equal drop in demand**
Fracking has *nothing* to do with our diplomatic success in Iran.
I addressed the "more conservative" thing above to another commenter...the definition of 'conservative' in those studies and 'conservative' in US politics is **very** different and completely unfit for comparison...
It measures 'conservative' in the sense of risk taking...like would you cash some of your kid's college fund to invest in a stock tip from a trusted friend?
younger...more likely
older...less likely
That doesn't mean that getting older makes you favor policies that protect companies like M$ and become pro-life!!!!
Those studies mean 'conservative' in risk-taking...not politics and policy!!!!
also, those studies are global-oriented with their language and issues...
France can be considered "socially conservative" by the definition and normalization those tests use...
American "social conservatives" and French "social conservatives" disagree on virtually every issue a US conservative finds important...guns, abortion, civil rights, nudity/porn, religion...
you're confusing two very different concepts
those studies are not at all informative to this discussion & /. definitely has had an uptick in paid commenters (look at UID #'s & it tells the whole story for you)
they measure **self reported attitudes** and have not been replicated b/c...they're not worth a researcher's time...
I'm in my mid-30s now and there is no way any of my older geek friends have gotten **more Republican** in their personal philosophy...from pro-choice to pro-life? if anything you can see a measurable move towards atheism...
You may argue that more geeks either *dont' vote* or vote for a 'libertarian' than previously and that I would grant you...but there's not chance in hell educated people are becoming more conservative
browse at -1 and have a look at the comments...i mod often and you're right /. is *definitely* more genuine than most... /. is crawling with paid Public Relations staffers (Fox News is def. not the only one to do this), paid commentors, and maybe even an actual experimental bot (APK...)
They ruin the top of the comments on anything to do with Snowden, the oil industry, and the Trayvon Martin case type stuff....techies havent' gotten *more* conservative in the last 10 years...but /. comments on average have...it's because of PR and paid commentors
We *genuine* humans need to be more discerning than ever...there are people, much like us, whose entire job is to create false perceptions on things like /.
Its kind of important, for you know, idea neutrality that we all be smarter, respond to only comments that are value added and of course...and I need this advice as much as anyone...
***DONT FEED THE TROLLS***
haha no I had no idea...i *def* thought it was Brett Ratner...see, I skimmed TFA...just read the part describing what it was...then moved on
I know we can't go around coining phrases willy-nilly but I think that article is right on...
I can't stand Brett Ratner or his films but if he is iconic enough to warrant naming the Effect of [damaging sales by disparaging own products] after him, them I think we should consider "Abrams Effect"
He screwed up Trek films & now he's set to screw of Star Wars too
I'm a 'trekkie' i guess secretly, but i can appreciate Star Wars camp factor/space opera thing for what it is (and pretend George Lucas doesn't exist) /. tends towards Star Wars fans, but even if you hate Trek you can see how Abrams ruined Gene Roddenberry's concept of futurism. It was indeed revolutionary (& if he wanted to Roddenberry could have started a Scientology-like cult that ppl would buy into, IMHO) because of how he used a silly sci-fi program to expose very relevant problems in society...
Star Wars isn't like that...but understand my point is that **the appeal** of Star Wars, beyond the effects and cool space battles, is something complex and not easily replicated. It's a fine esoteric line that the film has to walk, given Lucas's legacy, but it can be done, and done well IMHO. J.J. Abrams is definitely not the one to do it.
Abram's M.O. is to take a beloved cult concept and remove all the uniqueness from it while simultaneously using high-level marketing to give the impression that his is a 'fan's filmmaker' who will preserve the unique complexities of a work while making it new visually.
J.J. Abrams is a hack.
I believe his filthy way is deserving of its own 'Effect' moniker. What do you think?
I hear you RE: Xbox live competitive advantage
see, my dad is an old electronics guy from the Navy and he **loves** playing the Tiger Woods golf video game on the internet w/ his buddies all over the world...
he doesn't give a shit about what plaform, what system, w/e...he just wants to play Tiger Woods Golf in co/op mode...
I had to set him up w/ an Xbox Live account and teach him now to navigate around M$'s bullshit marketing on the Xbox Live Marketplace
He would hate to have to switch systems and would endure a fair ammount of bother to avoid it...
however, if the majority of his friends switch to PS4 then it's a foregone conclusion he will get a PS4 as well!!!!
thanks for that...I was in a politics tweeting phase and I tried to get a conversation started about Greenwald's background, b/c I used to work in news (at a low level staffer, but I was at a network and later was web editor for a newspaper)
The way Greenwald operated bothered me...it seemed he didn't care at all about **protecting his source**
That's journalism 101...the USA has well understood laws that can, **if the journalist is willing to go to jail for 2-6 months** protect a source of a news story...see, Congress can subpeona you to testify, the journalist pleas the 5th, then they have the right to jail the journalist for as long as they think it might be coorcive for the journalist to give up their source.
By law it can't be more than a year, and almost always ends around 4 months...
It's rare but it has happened...it sucks for those months, but as a journalist, if you go through that whole process you come out a hero with a guaranteed book deal!
It requires all parties...the leaker, the journalist, newpaper editor, and a good lawyer...and the information leaked has to be highly relevant and...you know...true...
but it can and does happen...Greenwald didn't approach this at all like a professional and no one ever talked about it!
as in, "Marissa Meyer is going to 'Elop' Yahoo if it kills her"
or "J.J. Abrahms had better not 'Elop' the franchise..."
yep...
TFA headline actually made me LOL: "Stephen Elop Would Pull a Nokia On Microsoft"
Right?
I think M$ is going to undergo even more headline grabbing changes and someone spinning off a major division or brand (like Xbox) is exactly the kind of way this would happen.
Did you see the article on Playstation 4? I have never bought a PS (from the beginning IMHO it was a lesser nintendo but i'm old school like that...) and I'm not any kind of gamer fanboi but the PS4 looks badass all the way around. It's going to be $100 cheaper on launch and the 3rd Party game situation will be killer
Xbox is M$'s next casualty...seriously...
But yeah, to get back off-topic...let's make "Elop" a verb meaning to abandon a company's popular proven products in favor of an over-designed unusable system, which causes the company to lose sales & eventually be purchased by a competing interest.
I'm getting really sick of this shit over and over....
We've finally concluded that Snowden is no hero, by some a traitor, for others a dupe...and we're over it...
The media fucked up reporting this **from day 1**
We knew this in **2006** NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
yet there was no public outcry...
then the big one...PATRIOT ACT
full text of the Patriot Act has been reported on and available to anyone with an internet connection or library card since 2001...
I'm sick of Snowden's puppet masters having free reign of the news...we need smarter editors!
I can see what you're saying here:
yes indeed sir...and I agree it's a smart idea
my point is about the greater model that we all accept...that all sofware/hardware companies leverage user features and control against privacy
You present a good defense of the need to track this...
But what about just because it's good to figure things out?!?!
Curiosity drives our evolution now...at least it seems that way...I'm not saying we give out a $10 billion NSA grant to find out what these 'tails' are (my guess is that all comets have multiple tails, this one just imaged right and was of the right type for us to see)...
I'm saying, from a philosophical standpoint, science for science sake is a good human endeavor
I like how an AC took the time to politely chastise a logged-in griefer posting sub-moronic Reddit type shit...
Good on you, AC...and I'd give a +1 informative for sparing any of us the clickbait and telling us what it links to
I am against both Google and the NSA's data collection policies, but your vitriol is weirdly misplaced
See, from an engineering and legal perspective, the data the NSA and Google gather are not, as you say
Now, there is so much wrong with this, but in the greater sense you and I share alot of common ground. We probably agree overall...
No, what bothers me is how uninformed your opinions are...it's distracting. You need to learn a bit about IT engineering, networking, telcommunications, and things like the Patriot Act.
I'm not saying take a college class...just wikipedia...
read the wikipedia on the Patriot Act...then read the wikipedia on T-com engineering. Maybe have a look at how a big data center works from a technical perspective. Wired, etc. have good articles available.
Really....read up. You're right in your heart but you come off as a conversational succubus.....your kind of trolling, the kind that is right at heart, really can derail a value-added discussion
Yes, the NSA does use Google's data...there may be overlap in the raw data...but that is not at all near what you are babbling about....READ UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF
You may be **grammatically** correct that Google **technically** is tracking your location not your purchases...
But you're giving Google a free pass here:
"meh, privacy is dead" right? right??
wrong.
Privacy rights, and Google's accountability to them are as alive as **we the people demand**
We don't have to accept that new tech features must invariably require chipping away at our privacy until Google has enough data to extrapolate anything they want....
You must understand that Google ***IS DEFINITELY*** intending to track people's purchases using this tracking. They do what is known in the industry as "data analysis" where you compare two or more data sets that overlap to fill in missing pieces of information.
Google doesn't need to have access to your financial transactions to track your spending habits.
If you see that as an violation of privacy you don't have to just pretend "privacy is dead"....you can **actually** do something about it...it's called democracy...
sorry if I misunderstood...
about Google Car and Tesla...I agree that communters would definitely want the option to put the car on 'autopilot'...or to have a 'Tesla' electric...
what I think we disagree on is if those two things are (or will be) available and affordable for people who are not independently wealthy
we can probably find common ground, but I guess my greater point that I think most people don't "get" is that Google or Tesla could/should be competing with GM, Ford, etc...
i feel like we are capable of doing alot better....businesspeople are so limited in their thinking, IMHO
news for you pal, thats solidly middle class...unless you only have one income, kids, car payment, house payment...**then** you're more towards "lower middle/working class" on that income
i know the Virginian suburbs of Fairfax County well...your prefab McMansion and SUV don't mean you're rich
wake up and smell the financial crisis...you are not as rich as you think you are....and the truly rich have **100x more than you**...more than you'll make in 20 years...that's today's income disparity
bah! I swear...people blame the poor for bad mortgages but its the really the suburban "keeping up with the Jones" mentality that caused those bad mortages
So was it the Dem's in Congress who didn't want it? Or was it Obama?
It seems to me you're putting the blame on Obama for something Dem's in Congress caved on...
You're telling me, if the Dem's in Congress had passed ACA with a "public option" that Obama would have **vetoed** it??? I don't buy it...
It's more likely that **Obama** wanted the "public option" but the Dem's in Congress (like the pussies they are) caved and tried to be "bipartisan" with the GOP...to their failure...
Back to GP's conspiracy theory....NO Obama did not *want* the ACA to fail...but he knew it would without a public option...that doesn't mean he **wants** it to fail...
It's like a just a dumb drunk friend at a party. He wants to jump over the bonfire....you warn him it's too far to jump but he won't listen....he's too drunk to physically restrain w/o a scuffle, so you warn him and let physics take its course. Did you **want** your drunk buddy to fall in the fire? NO...you tried your best to prevent it....but you still **videotape his attempt on your phone!!!** that doesn't mean you **made** him fall in the fire!
Obama can't phsyically forces Dem's in Congress to have a spine and be professional...and he can't trash the shitty version of the ACA that they passed either...
I'm so glad you mentioned the 'single-payer' thing...I don't think it was a 'conspiracy' at all...why need a conspiracy? Obama had just won election and had a majority in both House/Senate...
I completely support socialized medicine (just like how the US has a 'socialist' water system), and I have been freaking out at even the Progressives because no one is talking about the Single Payer system...
But even more than that, I'm at a loss to explain what happened to the **PUBLIC OPTION**
Liberals, Democrats, and news aware others should remember the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. It was essentially between Obama and Hillary.
There were debates...Rachel Maddow interviews...Daily Kos blog postings...etc etc etc...ah 2008....
One of the **major** dividing issues, both candidates agreed, was their approach to 'health care reform'
Both wanted to 'socialize' it, but Hillary wanted her more insurance-industry favored (and Romney/Mass approved) 'health exchange' with no public option. Obama differentiated himself precisely because he was in favor of a public option. Obama won....then he won again. Then it went to Congress to make the bill for Obama to sign.
WTF went wrong?
Why wasn't a Public Option included in the original bill, and why is no one talking about it now???
agree or disagree...be you 'libertarian' or actual admitted Republican...I'm not making a point of contention...just asking...anyone...wtf happened to the public option???
even if my expenses *trippled* it wouldn't matter at all to my point about the math
but my rates wouldn't increase b/c I already have comprehensive