Excellent reaction to information. Do you also react that way to things like "2 + 2 = 4" and other basic stuff? Does it hurt to feel the need to lash out at reality for existing? Have you considered seeking help?
more people attempting to go see their doctors is a GOOD thing
Not if the doctors are forced to reduce the quality of their services, and not if the doctors are forced to close their practices because the law is bankrupting them. How does my medical care improve if I used to be able to call my doctor and then promptly show up and be seen, but now I have to wait weeks or even months for an appointment? How is my care improved if the doctor I've been seeing for years is lost to me because the new law killed off the insurance plan I had, and the new (far more expensive) plans that are available no longer cover interactions with that doctor? How is any of that a "GOOD thing," especially when all of that deteriorating care is reflected in a tripling of my monthly premium and a quadrupling of my deductible in order to subsidize other people's use of the same services for which I have to pay?
Your empty platitudes on the subject are pretty disingenuous.
Indeed and that reason is the not so latent racism in the GOP base
Oh, please. You're embarrassing yourself.
Every major piece of the ACA was *favored* by the GOP, just not 'Obamacare'.
No, not even CLOSE to "every" major piece. That new federal law was opposed by the people that didn't vote for it over everything from smaller details (like new taxes on medical devices) to fundamental world-view type stuff (like forcing people to engage in business with insurers whether they want to or not... and don't bother trotting out the apples/oranges comparison to liability insurance for choosing to operate a car). The bill's critics wanted to block it because of what it did and did not do, not because of your fantasy notion of their objection to the president's skin color.
Also note, the meeting with all the GOP players on the night of Obama's inauguration to 'oppose anything he did'.
Right. When someone tells you what they stand for and what they promise to do, and you consider that entire agenda to be the opposite of what you think should be done in government, what do you think people SHOULD do? I imagine you're going to say that politicians should compromise, right? And your idea of compromise is, "the people I don't like should do what I want, instead of what they want." Were you not paying attention as the Democrats and their supporters vilified Obama's predecessor at every turn, and made every effort to block everything he did or said, agenda-wise? I know, you think that's different because your opinion is that they were right in that agenda, and so it's OK. Just not when someone else does it.
His argument? The pork in the Sandy Relief bill. While laudable policy wise, playing political football with people's lives to make a point is exactly what's wrong with the GOP these days.
But you can't bring yourself to simply assign the blame to the people who loaded up the Sandy bill with their own pork? They're not playing politics? Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.
No, I'm responding to the GP's implication that there was no reason for a person to be arrested if they don't also evacuate a building. Which is BS, and I provided an example. Who's the moron? You, the person who can't read.
simply followed the lead of the political right in the US in ignoring the requirements
The part of the government that follows/executes the laws is the executive branch, which is run by Democrats. They are the ones unilaterally ignoring and changing plain-language statutes with the wave of a pen for partisan political reasons. Hell, they're doing that to their own pet law (Obamacare) because they've realized what a train wreck it is, as it relates to the upcoming election.
So, you're cool with someone deliberately putting a fake bomb on a bench in a shopping mall, no legal consequences? Please be specific. Are you also OK with waving unloaded guns in people's faces since, you know, they won't actually die, so who cares what they think?
To be fair, a police officer doesn't have to think that somebody's prank actually IS a bomb to find that someone attempting to spook people into wondering if something is a bomb needs to be hauled off for being a jerk. A surprising number of people try to either really fake people into thinking they have a bomb, or try to just troll people with a cartoon-looking bomb for the lulz. There's a reason that anything even approaching a hoax bomb gets the hoaxer in deep legal shit: because you don't joke around about stuff like that. Ever.
I'm sorry, I seem to have confused you. I was talking about Bush Jr.
Right. Bush Sr. was president when Iraq attempted to take over Kuwait, and Saddam signed the agreements that he failed to uphold throughout Clinton's time in office, and continued to abused up to and until his regime was finally removed. That was two US presidents later, but the same single agreement against which he continued to cheat. He (Saddam) continued to kill people, threaten allied aircraft, import weapons, steal UN funds, and block inspectors right up until the end. That conflict started with his invasion of Kuwait, and never actually ended, because he never honored the agreement that saved Baghdad from invasion during his initial retreat. Of course you know all of this.
In the case of Bush, "Don't start a war in Iraq on false pretenses" would have been a good idea.
Iraq didn't actually invade Kuwait? Iraq didn't agree to end the push-back against that invasion in a way that required them to meet a list of very specific requirement? Iraq didn't systematically blow off those requirements for years, and continue to slaughter Saddam's opponents, including thousands of people using WMDs? Iraq didn't continue to shoot at allied aircraft enforcing the agreed-to no-fly zones? The UN didn't see, but later be unable to account for the location of tons and tons of VX gas weapons? Iraq didn't respond to UN inspector requirements with completely bogus reports and denied access to inspection targets? Iraq didn't cheat on their oil-for-food agreement by diverting the money to more weapons purchases? Iraq didn't continue to import SCUD parts despite agreeing to no longer make those missiles?
Saddam didn't live up to a single aspect of the cease-fire agreement he signed in response to his attempt to annex Kuwait. The re-invasion and toppling of his regime was in response to his continued hostility and what intelligence agencies around the world perceived to be his ongoing stockpiling of WMDs, missiles, etc. He himself appears to have been deceived by some of his own underlings, thinking he had more and better of such things than he actually did. Regardless, the "false premises" part is incorrect. The underlying premise is unavoidable: he invaded a neighboring country and then did everything he could to avoid living up to the agreement that kept his regime in place at the end of that attempt. The consequences took some years to catch up to him, but they did.
Among other people, she was corresponding with one of her personal lackeys, Sidney Blumenthal. He was sending her information about diplomatic affairs and related intelligence in Europe... mail that she scrubbed out of her records on her personal server before printing out 30,000 messages that she said were everything even remotely to her job as SoS. Of course Blumenthal's emails were found by other means, but missing from her supposedly thorough, years later than required and only under subpoena, transfer of her cherry-picked messages. His were deleted along with tens of thousands of others that she swears were all about yoga classes and wedding plans.
And no, there isn't some magical robot that can contextually understand when an email contains sensitive or "born classified" information. That's what TRAINED PEOPLE are for. The CIA, among other agencies reviewing the cherry-picked records she belatedly produced, found classified material in the first few dozen messages they reviewed. As someone trained to know classified when she saw it, and enabled during her job to declare things as classified, she knew exactly what she was doing and what was on her server. Lying about it now is just embarrassing.
That means that, unlike her, you didn't personally pay an IT guy from the State Department to come to your house to administer the private server you set up. Of course she knows where the server was at every step along the way: the Clintons are the ones who arranged to have it provisioned, and used it for years.
Classified emails? What if she didn't know they were, it's not like she knows EVERYTHING.
She was the nation's top diplomat. Briefed regularly on security matters, and explicitly on the the handling of sensitive information. EVERY scrap of information that came her way which included things like satellite imagery of foreign nations was "born classified" and is ALWAYS considered such. She knows that, you know that, and everyone else knows that. It's not like she was confused on the subject. She just lied about there being any such information on her server, and of course it turns out it was indeed there, as reported by multiple investigating agencies. Her saying that such messages were never on her personal server is a lie, plain and simple.
Have you actually bothered to read what such comments tend to look like? "Sending prayers!" "Hugs!" "Our thoughts are with you" and other 100% pure, unadulterated platitudes that are no different than saying "bless you" when someone sneezes. Do those people REALLY think they need to invoke the blessings of a magical being every time somebody sneezes? No. It's a bit of cultural kabuki that gets played on cruise control just like all of the reflexive empathy statements that people might as well be copying and pasting into social media comments when someone shares some difficult news. Clicking a button is just a bit more succinct than spitting out one of those two- or four-word platitudes. Everyone knows that no such response is sincere anyway. "My condolences"... really? That's NOT better than a button. It's WORSE. Because if you actually meant it, you'd have more to say. But instead, typing out those two words just means that you can't be bothered to say more, but want to APPEAR to care. It's completely transparent.
I'd expect a lot of them to start and end their day at the contractor's 'office'
I've worked in that capacity sometimes for years. That's never how it went. I know people who work in all sorts of disciplines who fulfill work done for a range of customers under a contract held by their employers. And they don't stop at one office before going somewhere else to consult or provide other services.
What? This has nothing to do with the number of people involved. Just the new costs that the employers must pass along to their customers. If the customers don't want to pay the extra cost, then they'll shop around for another provider. If a more distant company can't remain competitive when charging more to cover commuting costs, why do you think that closer-by employers would be able to attract those more distant employees? If distance is the issue, it impacts all parts of the equation unless someone is willing to move.
It's true. They'll just have to raise their prices, passing this new cost along to customers. Or, they'll perhaps lose their business to other companies that have staff closer to the houses they clean, possibly costing the employees in question their jobs. But mostly, it will just show up as higher prices, and some lost accounts involving customers who don't want to pay higher prices.
You said it yourself: he _politically_ appoints the directors.
Right. Per the constitution, his appointees are subject to legislative approval. Thus politics. But no person can hold any of those jobs without the president choosing that person. If you're saying that president isn't a strong enough personality to choose his own appointees, that's a separate issue. But he's the one who personally selects and signs those appointments. Whether or not he relies (as all must) on his advisors and others to help track down suitable candidates has nothing to do with the process somehow being based on "unelected" government... the people who are giving the president advice are chosen by (and listened to or ignored) by the president that was elected.
the US voting system itself, which is mathematically proven to contain serious flaws (e.g. the ability to elect a candidate whom an absolute majority of voters did not choose)
Right. Because we (thank goodness) don't live in a simple democracy. We live in a fairly complex constitutional republic with lots of mechanisms in place to try to balance out the influence of the states, the population concentrations, etc. We use an electoral college, not simple democracy. This isn't the PTA or the local homeowners association.
He didn't increase my family's health care coverage. He got our existing, perfectly adequate insurance plan cancelled. We've had to replace it with a plan that costs three times as much every month, and we now have a $12,000 deductible in place of the $2,000 one we had. Of course now we get "free" mandatory neo-natal care, something we'll be sure to use now that we're well past childbearing years. Thanks, Obama!
Yes he is, he's just too dumb to realize he is. "The government," when it comes to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc., is the executive branch of the government. It is run by the Chief Executive. That is Obama today and for the last six years. He politically appoints the directors of every one of those agencies, and they report to him. Of course you know that, and you're just trying to deflect.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent reaction to information. Do you also react that way to things like "2 + 2 = 4" and other basic stuff? Does it hurt to feel the need to lash out at reality for existing? Have you considered seeking help?
Do you say "Jay Ay Ex Ay" when you see JAXA?
It's true. Like, I enjoyed your post even though you committed the unforgivable (if common) sin of spelling it "Nasa" even though you know better.
Yeah so they're language skills aren't the best.
I love irony.
more people attempting to go see their doctors is a GOOD thing
Not if the doctors are forced to reduce the quality of their services, and not if the doctors are forced to close their practices because the law is bankrupting them. How does my medical care improve if I used to be able to call my doctor and then promptly show up and be seen, but now I have to wait weeks or even months for an appointment? How is my care improved if the doctor I've been seeing for years is lost to me because the new law killed off the insurance plan I had, and the new (far more expensive) plans that are available no longer cover interactions with that doctor? How is any of that a "GOOD thing," especially when all of that deteriorating care is reflected in a tripling of my monthly premium and a quadrupling of my deductible in order to subsidize other people's use of the same services for which I have to pay?
Your empty platitudes on the subject are pretty disingenuous.
Indeed and that reason is the not so latent racism in the GOP base
Oh, please. You're embarrassing yourself.
Every major piece of the ACA was *favored* by the GOP, just not 'Obamacare'.
No, not even CLOSE to "every" major piece. That new federal law was opposed by the people that didn't vote for it over everything from smaller details (like new taxes on medical devices) to fundamental world-view type stuff (like forcing people to engage in business with insurers whether they want to or not ... and don't bother trotting out the apples/oranges comparison to liability insurance for choosing to operate a car). The bill's critics wanted to block it because of what it did and did not do, not because of your fantasy notion of their objection to the president's skin color.
Also note, the meeting with all the GOP players on the night of Obama's inauguration to 'oppose anything he did'.
Right. When someone tells you what they stand for and what they promise to do, and you consider that entire agenda to be the opposite of what you think should be done in government, what do you think people SHOULD do? I imagine you're going to say that politicians should compromise, right? And your idea of compromise is, "the people I don't like should do what I want, instead of what they want." Were you not paying attention as the Democrats and their supporters vilified Obama's predecessor at every turn, and made every effort to block everything he did or said, agenda-wise? I know, you think that's different because your opinion is that they were right in that agenda, and so it's OK. Just not when someone else does it.
His argument? The pork in the Sandy Relief bill. While laudable policy wise, playing political football with people's lives to make a point is exactly what's wrong with the GOP these days.
But you can't bring yourself to simply assign the blame to the people who loaded up the Sandy bill with their own pork? They're not playing politics? Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.
No, I'm responding to the GP's implication that there was no reason for a person to be arrested if they don't also evacuate a building. Which is BS, and I provided an example. Who's the moron? You, the person who can't read.
simply followed the lead of the political right in the US in ignoring the requirements
The part of the government that follows/executes the laws is the executive branch, which is run by Democrats. They are the ones unilaterally ignoring and changing plain-language statutes with the wave of a pen for partisan political reasons. Hell, they're doing that to their own pet law (Obamacare) because they've realized what a train wreck it is, as it relates to the upcoming election.
So, you're cool with someone deliberately putting a fake bomb on a bench in a shopping mall, no legal consequences? Please be specific. Are you also OK with waving unloaded guns in people's faces since, you know, they won't actually die, so who cares what they think?
To be fair, a police officer doesn't have to think that somebody's prank actually IS a bomb to find that someone attempting to spook people into wondering if something is a bomb needs to be hauled off for being a jerk. A surprising number of people try to either really fake people into thinking they have a bomb, or try to just troll people with a cartoon-looking bomb for the lulz. There's a reason that anything even approaching a hoax bomb gets the hoaxer in deep legal shit: because you don't joke around about stuff like that. Ever.
I'm sorry, I seem to have confused you. I was talking about Bush Jr.
Right. Bush Sr. was president when Iraq attempted to take over Kuwait, and Saddam signed the agreements that he failed to uphold throughout Clinton's time in office, and continued to abused up to and until his regime was finally removed. That was two US presidents later, but the same single agreement against which he continued to cheat. He (Saddam) continued to kill people, threaten allied aircraft, import weapons, steal UN funds, and block inspectors right up until the end. That conflict started with his invasion of Kuwait, and never actually ended, because he never honored the agreement that saved Baghdad from invasion during his initial retreat. Of course you know all of this.
In the case of Bush, "Don't start a war in Iraq on false pretenses" would have been a good idea.
Iraq didn't actually invade Kuwait? Iraq didn't agree to end the push-back against that invasion in a way that required them to meet a list of very specific requirement? Iraq didn't systematically blow off those requirements for years, and continue to slaughter Saddam's opponents, including thousands of people using WMDs? Iraq didn't continue to shoot at allied aircraft enforcing the agreed-to no-fly zones? The UN didn't see, but later be unable to account for the location of tons and tons of VX gas weapons? Iraq didn't respond to UN inspector requirements with completely bogus reports and denied access to inspection targets? Iraq didn't cheat on their oil-for-food agreement by diverting the money to more weapons purchases? Iraq didn't continue to import SCUD parts despite agreeing to no longer make those missiles?
Saddam didn't live up to a single aspect of the cease-fire agreement he signed in response to his attempt to annex Kuwait. The re-invasion and toppling of his regime was in response to his continued hostility and what intelligence agencies around the world perceived to be his ongoing stockpiling of WMDs, missiles, etc. He himself appears to have been deceived by some of his own underlings, thinking he had more and better of such things than he actually did. Regardless, the "false premises" part is incorrect. The underlying premise is unavoidable: he invaded a neighboring country and then did everything he could to avoid living up to the agreement that kept his regime in place at the end of that attempt. The consequences took some years to catch up to him, but they did.
Among other people, she was corresponding with one of her personal lackeys, Sidney Blumenthal. He was sending her information about diplomatic affairs and related intelligence in Europe ... mail that she scrubbed out of her records on her personal server before printing out 30,000 messages that she said were everything even remotely to her job as SoS. Of course Blumenthal's emails were found by other means, but missing from her supposedly thorough, years later than required and only under subpoena, transfer of her cherry-picked messages. His were deleted along with tens of thousands of others that she swears were all about yoga classes and wedding plans.
And no, there isn't some magical robot that can contextually understand when an email contains sensitive or "born classified" information. That's what TRAINED PEOPLE are for. The CIA, among other agencies reviewing the cherry-picked records she belatedly produced, found classified material in the first few dozen messages they reviewed. As someone trained to know classified when she saw it, and enabled during her job to declare things as classified, she knew exactly what she was doing and what was on her server. Lying about it now is just embarrassing.
Do you know where your e-mail server is? I don't
That means that, unlike her, you didn't personally pay an IT guy from the State Department to come to your house to administer the private server you set up. Of course she knows where the server was at every step along the way: the Clintons are the ones who arranged to have it provisioned, and used it for years.
Classified emails? What if she didn't know they were, it's not like she knows EVERYTHING.
She was the nation's top diplomat. Briefed regularly on security matters, and explicitly on the the handling of sensitive information. EVERY scrap of information that came her way which included things like satellite imagery of foreign nations was "born classified" and is ALWAYS considered such. She knows that, you know that, and everyone else knows that. It's not like she was confused on the subject. She just lied about there being any such information on her server, and of course it turns out it was indeed there, as reported by multiple investigating agencies. Her saying that such messages were never on her personal server is a lie, plain and simple.
What do you call someone who knows the truth, but continues to misrepresent it or to say something that is not true?
A "Clinton"
Is it that hard to just leave a comment?
Have you actually bothered to read what such comments tend to look like? "Sending prayers!" "Hugs!" "Our thoughts are with you" and other 100% pure, unadulterated platitudes that are no different than saying "bless you" when someone sneezes. Do those people REALLY think they need to invoke the blessings of a magical being every time somebody sneezes? No. It's a bit of cultural kabuki that gets played on cruise control just like all of the reflexive empathy statements that people might as well be copying and pasting into social media comments when someone shares some difficult news. Clicking a button is just a bit more succinct than spitting out one of those two- or four-word platitudes. Everyone knows that no such response is sincere anyway. "My condolences" ... really? That's NOT better than a button. It's WORSE. Because if you actually meant it, you'd have more to say. But instead, typing out those two words just means that you can't be bothered to say more, but want to APPEAR to care. It's completely transparent.
I'd expect a lot of them to start and end their day at the contractor's 'office'
I've worked in that capacity sometimes for years. That's never how it went. I know people who work in all sorts of disciplines who fulfill work done for a range of customers under a contract held by their employers. And they don't stop at one office before going somewhere else to consult or provide other services.
Contractors already include the cost of travel to/from the client in their business contract. This is about employees, not contractors
You do understand that many people are employed by contractors, right? Are you foggy on that?
It won't. This is about contractors who wander from gig to gig, likely many of them different every single week. Think about, say, plumbers.
What? This has nothing to do with the number of people involved. Just the new costs that the employers must pass along to their customers. If the customers don't want to pay the extra cost, then they'll shop around for another provider. If a more distant company can't remain competitive when charging more to cover commuting costs, why do you think that closer-by employers would be able to attract those more distant employees? If distance is the issue, it impacts all parts of the equation unless someone is willing to move.
It's true. They'll just have to raise their prices, passing this new cost along to customers. Or, they'll perhaps lose their business to other companies that have staff closer to the houses they clean, possibly costing the employees in question their jobs. But mostly, it will just show up as higher prices, and some lost accounts involving customers who don't want to pay higher prices.
You said it yourself: he _politically_ appoints the directors.
Right. Per the constitution, his appointees are subject to legislative approval. Thus politics. But no person can hold any of those jobs without the president choosing that person. If you're saying that president isn't a strong enough personality to choose his own appointees, that's a separate issue. But he's the one who personally selects and signs those appointments. Whether or not he relies (as all must) on his advisors and others to help track down suitable candidates has nothing to do with the process somehow being based on "unelected" government ... the people who are giving the president advice are chosen by (and listened to or ignored) by the president that was elected.
the US voting system itself, which is mathematically proven to contain serious flaws (e.g. the ability to elect a candidate whom an absolute majority of voters did not choose)
Right. Because we (thank goodness) don't live in a simple democracy. We live in a fairly complex constitutional republic with lots of mechanisms in place to try to balance out the influence of the states, the population concentrations, etc. We use an electoral college, not simple democracy. This isn't the PTA or the local homeowners association.
He didn't increase my family's health care coverage. He got our existing, perfectly adequate insurance plan cancelled. We've had to replace it with a plan that costs three times as much every month, and we now have a $12,000 deductible in place of the $2,000 one we had. Of course now we get "free" mandatory neo-natal care, something we'll be sure to use now that we're well past childbearing years. Thanks, Obama!
He isnt talking about obama, dumbass
Yes he is, he's just too dumb to realize he is. "The government," when it comes to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc., is the executive branch of the government. It is run by the Chief Executive. That is Obama today and for the last six years. He politically appoints the directors of every one of those agencies, and they report to him. Of course you know that, and you're just trying to deflect.
Were you killed by someone who got tired of your unwillingness to process illustrative analogies and metaphors?