That's a good point about PR. Microsoft has been handling bad PR for decades now, and probably understands how to deal with it better than any other tech company. At the time of "antennagate" (which to me wasn't as big a deal as it was made out to be) I suggested to some colleagues Apple should have brought in Microsoft PR to handle it. Apple kind of cheesed it. Microsoft would likely have taken a different approach.
11 year old kid with a disability earns public sympathy instantly. His mother is inclined to take his word for it because that's what they do.
The reality of it all though is that nobody has enough details to pass judgment. But this is/., where everyone is an instant expert and knows exactly where blame lies.
I'm glad that's happening to someone else... makes looking at replies to your posts painful if it's several layers deep. Maybe that's the intention though, I get into some pretty heated arguments.
Until that's fixed, I'll just have to post less and ignore replies. That makes for great discussion...
1) Citation needed... healthcare falls under commerce? gimme a break
2) Citation needed
3) Wants and gets are two different things. The insurance companies have made their stance pretty clear. Sadly, he can't promise them what he promised states like LA and NE to get their reps on board.
4) Point taken.
5) I'm claiming a good number of members of congress said it was too long to read.
6) Weird, so once again, since nobody can answer this question... how does it get paid for? We're ADDING people to federal payment for healthcare. That costs money.
And one more thing.. there are some distinct differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
1) RomneyCare was for Massachusetts... at the state level... which is purely constitutional based on the 10th Amendment. ObamaCare is for the entire country (one size fits all) and is strictly forbidden by the 10th Amendment.
2) RomneyCare was implemented after the state balanced its budget. Not so for ObamaCare. And mind you, many people argue against ObamaCare because the nation cannot afford it.
3) Romney met with MA insurance companies to get agreement on the bill before it was voted on. He also sought bipartisanship.
4) Romney's plan did not include insurance price controls nor a public option.
5) Romney's plan was a readable 70 pages long, not 2000.
6) Romney's plan doesn't cut Medicare, not impose new taxes.
So yeah, other than those (and probably a few I missed) they're exactly the same. The same but different that is.
Reality was when he was pushing it and the House and Senate were voting for it, the majority did NOT support it. That was when he and both houses were ignoring their constituents and Pelosi was saying things like "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" and her famous quote about passing the bill whether the American people wanted it or not.
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
At a time when Rasmussen showed 61% of Americans did not want the bill. (January 2010)
Maybe now they do, but at the time of the voting they didn't. I assume you know that, which is why you talk about now rather than when the President was pushing it and the House and Senate were ignoring their constituents.
Most people never thought they had a chance at controlling the Senate until the next election anyway. They (and I mean they, I'm neither a Republican nor a Tea Party member... notice the lack of name calling though) did however gain seats there.
I think the large shift in the House speaks for itself though. People were unhappy with quite a few things, and IMHO the vote and Pelosi's comments on ObamaCare even though the majority of citizens didn't want it sealed the deal.
Do you really see him as a Republican rather than a centrist progressive?
I doubt any Republicans would have fought as hard as he did to push ObamaCare.
p.s. duly noted that you continually capitalized Democrats and not republicans... and for the record, I'm Libertarian and couldn't care less about either of the major parties
Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
His job is to make sure his client gets a fair trial, and as a defense attorney. He doesn't have to like or support what happened, but does have to guarantee his rights in court are not trampled.
The GC's role is expanded beyond acting as defense attorney for the President and staff. From wikipedia:
and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.
That's huge, and a far cry from making sure someone gets a fair trial.
Percieved by some or maybe even many, but I believe there's a growing number of folks who feel the same way the AC does.
I tend to go off a bit on people who say one party (Dem/Rep) is better than the other. They're both the same, and are looking out for their own interests, often in the form of looking out for the interests of the PACs that put them in office in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious where established facts on this issue can be found from either side. Microsoft says he cheated, Mom says he didn't.
Why are people taking sides?
That's a good point about PR. Microsoft has been handling bad PR for decades now, and probably understands how to deal with it better than any other tech company. At the time of "antennagate" (which to me wasn't as big a deal as it was made out to be) I suggested to some colleagues Apple should have brought in Microsoft PR to handle it. Apple kind of cheesed it. Microsoft would likely have taken a different approach.
11 year old kid with a disability earns public sympathy instantly. His mother is inclined to take his word for it because that's what they do.
The reality of it all though is that nobody has enough details to pass judgment. But this is /., where everyone is an instant expert and knows exactly where blame lies.
You obviously haven't been playing Call of Duty with 11 year olds :D
I'm glad that's happening to someone else... makes looking at replies to your posts painful if it's several layers deep. Maybe that's the intention though, I get into some pretty heated arguments.
Until that's fixed, I'll just have to post less and ignore replies. That makes for great discussion...
You act as if I'm the one running the polls. Maybe you should take your beef up with them instead... I can only recite the results of their polling.
Or, you could fund me doing a poll that separates the people to fit your model. That wouldn't be twisting anything though.
I'll send you my paypal account info and we can get started.
1) Citation needed... healthcare falls under commerce? gimme a break
2) Citation needed
3) Wants and gets are two different things. The insurance companies have made their stance pretty clear. Sadly, he can't promise them what he promised states like LA and NE to get their reps on board.
4) Point taken.
5) I'm claiming a good number of members of congress said it was too long to read.
6) Weird, so once again, since nobody can answer this question... how does it get paid for? We're ADDING people to federal payment for healthcare. That costs money.
Got any other fake bullshit disclaimers?
Holy crap you DO know how google works!
Interestingly enough, the article describes the plans as "similar" while you use the word "is" in comparison.
The differences still stand. One was legal at the state level, one was illegal at the federal level.
Should I cite the Constitution for you?
And one more thing.. there are some distinct differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
1) RomneyCare was for Massachusetts... at the state level... which is purely constitutional based on the 10th Amendment. ObamaCare is for the entire country (one size fits all) and is strictly forbidden by the 10th Amendment.
2) RomneyCare was implemented after the state balanced its budget. Not so for ObamaCare. And mind you, many people argue against ObamaCare because the nation cannot afford it.
3) Romney met with MA insurance companies to get agreement on the bill before it was voted on. He also sought bipartisanship.
4) Romney's plan did not include insurance price controls nor a public option.
5) Romney's plan was a readable 70 pages long, not 2000.
6) Romney's plan doesn't cut Medicare, not impose new taxes.
So yeah, other than those (and probably a few I missed) they're exactly the same. The same but different that is.
Where did you see me "admit" anything? I just pointed out that I was using the same term as our President uses.
p.s. Captain Citation Needed, you still haven't provided any yourself
Reality was when he was pushing it and the House and Senate were voting for it, the majority did NOT support it. That was when he and both houses were ignoring their constituents and Pelosi was saying things like "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" and her famous quote about passing the bill whether the American people wanted it or not.
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
At a time when Rasmussen showed 61% of Americans did not want the bill. (January 2010)
All mastered by Roosevelt, who at one point was way low in popularity because of his power grab in the Supreme Court.
Then tell that to President Obama who also uses the term ObamaCare these days.
While he loves to ask for citations, I've never actually seen him provide one /shrug
Maybe now they do, but at the time of the voting they didn't. I assume you know that, which is why you talk about now rather than when the President was pushing it and the House and Senate were ignoring their constituents.
Most people never thought they had a chance at controlling the Senate until the next election anyway. They (and I mean they, I'm neither a Republican nor a Tea Party member... notice the lack of name calling though) did however gain seats there.
I think the large shift in the House speaks for itself though. People were unhappy with quite a few things, and IMHO the vote and Pelosi's comments on ObamaCare even though the majority of citizens didn't want it sealed the deal.
He actually voted in the senate?
Yet he has anyway
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
It's a good thing Obama hasn't used executive orders so your statement holds true.
Was this a joke?
Citation about crazy needed.
Everything? Like pushing a healthcare bill only 45% of the population wanted?
Do you really see him as a Republican rather than a centrist progressive?
I doubt any Republicans would have fought as hard as he did to push ObamaCare.
p.s. duly noted that you continually capitalized Democrats and not republicans... and for the record, I'm Libertarian and couldn't care less about either of the major parties
So Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio didn't win? Seems the Tea Party helped republicans win back the house.
Or as you like to say, a citation is needed to back your claim.
Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
His job is to make sure his client gets a fair trial, and as a defense attorney. He doesn't have to like or support what happened, but does have to guarantee his rights in court are not trampled.
The GC's role is expanded beyond acting as defense attorney for the President and staff. From wikipedia:
That's huge, and a far cry from making sure someone gets a fair trial.
Percieved by some or maybe even many, but I believe there's a growing number of folks who feel the same way the AC does.
I tend to go off a bit on people who say one party (Dem/Rep) is better than the other. They're both the same, and are looking out for their own interests, often in the form of looking out for the interests of the PACs that put them in office in the first place.