The buck stops here
-
@Snooder said:
Like (a) getting a scholarship to a rather famous prep-school, (b) getting into Columbia, (c) several achievements as a Community Organizer in Chicago (d) getting into Harvard Law, (e) making Law Review at Harvard (f) getting a coveted SA position at one of the largest law firms in the country (g) getting a teaching position at University of Chicago law (h) winning multiple elections to the illinois legislature (i) getting elected as a senator.
Sounds like a good salesman...
@Snooder said:
you just make sure all the citations are correct and there's an em-dash instead of an en-dash, or double spaces after each period, or what have you.
...who has impeccable grammar.
But it says very little (if anything) about what he's touting, though.
He may have excellent skills, and I won't deny that he might. But the fact that one side is making claims that sound like racism, and the other side is calling them out on it has little relevance on the validity of the claims themselves. The fact that such claims are possible, and that they are rebutted so strongly indicates that both sides believes that the charges are game-changers. If he only "succeeded" based on his skin color, then he shouldn't be in such a high official position and those who supported him are ultimately fools. On the other hand, if he succeeded based on his abilities, then his skin color is irrelevant, he ought to be doing a good job, and those who oppose him are clearly disgracing themselves by arguing against objectively good results.
-
@Jedalyzer said:
If he only "succeeded" based on his skin color, then he shouldn't be in such a high official position and those who supported him are ultimately fools. On the other hand, if he succeeded based on his abilities, then his skin color is irrelevant,
Agreed. Boomzilla's point seems to be that the evidence to make this determination is inadequate. He has chosen not to make public the information that would allow us to determine which of these if conditions are true (or the extent to which each is partially true).@Jedalyzer said:he ought to be doing a good job,
Agreed. The key word is "ought." Whether or not he succeeded based on his abilities in his previous endeavors, some people do not think he is succeeding in his current job.@Jedalyzer said:and those who oppose him are clearly disgracing themselves by arguing against objectively good results.
This is politics; the definition of "good results" depends heavily on the views and opinions of the observer. There are probably results that would be considered "good" or "bad" by people of all political stripes, and could therefore be considered reasonably objective. However, these constitute a pretty small subset of all the things a President has to do.Let us suppose, very, very hypothetically, that a President spearheaded a successful effort to balance the Federal budget and reduce the national debt. In the abstract, anyone with common sense would consider this a good result. However, opinions on the correct way to do this (cut spending vs. raise taxes) vary widely. No matter how the "good result" was achieved, a lot of people would think it was done incorrectly; therefore, they would not see the result as "good."
Since the results he has achieved cannot be called objectively good, those who oppose him are not arguing against "objectively good results," and not "clearly disgracing themselves."
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
But, and you still seem to be missing this, to say "we don't know where in the class she was or what her GPA was" about someone who graduated at the top of her class is incredibly fucking insulting, and demonstrates that the person criticizing doesn't actually care about the facts but instead is grasping at whatever he can because he just doesn't like her. Which could be because he's jealous, because she stole the last pastry at the christmas party, because her mismanagement got his buddy fired, or because he's a sexist jerk. When he compounds that willfull blindness by constantly talking about her gender, it's pretty apparent which of those it is.
That's fine, and I suppose applies to your original analogy. I'm just saying your analogy doesn't do much in explaining what we've been talking about. I'm not the one pointing to Obama's education as an example of how awesome he is.
It applies to PRECISELY what I've been talking about. Obama graduated top of his class from Harvard Law. That's what "President of the Harvard Law Review" means. To then say, as you did " It's hard to judge his output as editor, because he didn't really write anything" and "He hasn't released his transcripts. Maybe he was an ace student and keeps them hidden to give critics something to attack." Is the same as talking about how someone who you know graduated top of her class from Stanford may be have slept her way into a position because "we don't where in the class she was or what her GPA is." If you agree that the first scenario (the one with the Stanford grad) demonstrates prejudice, then you have to agree that the second scenario (with Obama) does as well.
I'm not in this to defend Obama's policies. That's not really a conversation I'm interested in having. I'm simply pointing out there really is reason for people to call certain critics of the president racist. Not everyone who criticizes the president are, true, but some really are. And right now, you're falling a little more on the racist side than not.
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
No, I'm saying that anyone who find the need to mention race when it is irrelevant is probably racist.
I think we agree on this.
If we agree, then why exactly are you disagreing with me? My original point was that it's valid to characterize as racist those critics whose criticism boils down to "he's an affirmative action president" instead of actually criticizing his policies. You seem to agree here, since his race is irrelevant to his policies.
@boomzilla said:
The 2008 Democratic primary was totally the affirmative action primary, though. The only people with a chance were people with very little of the traditional serious Presidential contender experience.
This is what I'm talking about here. The 2008 Democratic primary was between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Obama was an up and coming young politician with charisma who went to Columbia and Harvard law, who'd spent decades as a legislator. And before that, he'd spent a decade working in public policy since graduating from Columbia. Hilary Clinton had been a Senator for almost a decade and spent decades before in politics, before which she was a partner at a large and influential law firm after graduating from Yale law.If either of them was a white guy, nobody would even quibble about their qualifications for running for office. Before his first run for the presidency in 1980, George Bush senior's first political office was in 1966. Ronald Reagan's first political office was also in 1966 as Governor of California.That's 14 years compared to Barack Obama's 12. (1996-2008 from election to the State legislature to his presidential run). Carter was 15 years from his election to the state senate in 1961 to presidential election in 1976. Nixon was also 14 years from being elected to state legislature in California to his first presidential run in 1960. The "traditional" path to the presidency is (and probably always will be) (a) Ivy league education, (b) bar license, (c) election to lesser, but important political office; either Senator or Governor. Hilary and Obama both meet this pretty well.
Talking about either Hilary or Obama as some sort of mustang (in the military sense) who got bucked up from the ranks of nobodies is absolutely unbelievable. Truthfully, the only person in recent history with absolutely zero qualification who ran as a major party front-runner was the aborted attempt to run Elizabeth Dole before George Bush got in the 2000 election. And note, that was the Republican party.
-
@clively said:
My wife then explained that we owned the company and every dollar it spent was a dollar out of our pockets...[snip]...She simply suffers from that liberal disease which believes there is some incredible entity known as "They" which pays for everything. I simply don't have the words to convey the true depth of my inability to understand Them. No wonder this country is fucked.
No, I really don't think that is what is happening here. In a business, every business expense should not be a "dollar out of your pocket" unless you are running a sole proprietership or a partnership with NO legal liability protection. Which is really fucking stupid. I mean absolute gorram fucking stupid.
So it shouldn't be money out of your pocket; it should be money out of the corporate accounts of CLIVELY LLC, DBA "CLIVELY'S IT STUFF". Your business money should be WAY separate from your personal money. CLIVELY LLC is the "They" in this situation.
That you don't understand what your M-I-L is talking about means your business is ripe to be sued. Sue the business, take your house, car, AND all your possessions! JACKPOT! (And all your employees' stuff too. I love a lack of legal liability protection.)
@boomzilla said:I don't see how this is "political name calling" or ad-hominem.
You really don't see how liberal disease is ad-hom or political name calling? Really?
Dude, calling someone's political views a "disease" is not complimentary. And this is coming from a guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government.
@boomzilla said:Yeah, I can't see how that's ad hominem. He's trying to explain why she thinks that way, not dismissing it because it's her who is thinking it.
I'm still not getting how you fail to see that describing one's political views as a 'disease' is not ad-hom. I guess you suffer from "incomprehension disease".
If you don't think that's ad-hom, you need to see a doctor.
@boomzilla said:I wouldn't say that the Republican views are always in line with economic liberty.
You're not a very good conservative. We conservatives define economic liberty. What we say is economic liberty IS economic liberty.
@boomzilla said:are both very corporatist (AKA crony capitalist, though often confused by those with the American liberal disease as just capitalist)
Bullshit. Crony capitalists are socialist and therefore not conservative. Any Republican who is crony capitalist is not a real Republican, because socialism, therefore not conservative, therefore RINO-E. The TRUE Republican/conservative party believes in economic liberty. And economic liberty is what we proclaim it to be, for we are the inheritors of the Founding Fathers.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:Actually, I'm one of those people who doesn't give a shit about gay marriage because it doesn't affect me.
AH HA! A Liberaltarian!
True conservatism MUST include social conservatism, or it is not conservative.
@PJH said:Given the fact that (a high) minimum wage actually increases youth unemployment (the typical cohort for whom the minimum wage applies)
Serious query: Why should we give a fuck?
1) I'm not going to hire teenagers for the minimum wage because teenagers aren't trained properly for the minimum wage jobs at my corporation, cannot generally do 40 hours a week with mandatory 10-20 overtime, and are unreliable.
2) I can get adults who ARE trained properly, able to work a full 40 and overtime, and are reliable for minimum wage.
3) I can get illegals for UNDER the minimum wage who qualify the same as #2.
Youth need to concentrate on getting their degrees, their certs, their extracurriculars, and so on so that they can get the sheepskin and join the rest of the regular workforce. I see no reason why current youth today should work low-rent jobs that will taint their work history for the rest of their life.
@boomzilla said:If you're an unskilled person and cannot improve yourself or your prospects, life is going to suck for you. You may have just gotten a really shitty deal in life, but most likely, you participated in fucking yourself over.
That's really disingenous if you know anything about current corporate practices. You know that anyone over 45 is more or less considered an "obsolete" if they're not management, right?
@boomzilla said:You don't need a college degree to get a good job, and you definitely don't need one to get something better than McDonalds.
Now that's just straight pollyana bullshit. People without college degrees are low rents. It's why I get management jobs and they get the shitter jobs without advancement. And all the oldsters (40+) who do have the good jobs and no degree? There's a REASON why we're back-benching the fuckers and retiring them as fast as we can.
The age of No Degree is over. You don't have a degree? You're a low rent ditch digger. McD's is all your good for. And that's flat.
My degree makes me superior and more qualified than anyone on this board without, regardless of their accomplishments in comparison to mine. That's Credentialism, baby. That's corporate.
@KillaCoda said:Hmmm uneducated poor person or middle class university grad, who are businesses gonna hire?
Ugrad. Always. You don't hire low rents if you want to succeed in business.
@boomzilla said:There are lots of good jobs that don't require a degree and that lots of people make a living off of.
Name them.
Welder? Working in 100 degree heat, being replaced by robots every other minute?
Auto Mechanic? When your job is quickly being reduced to "unplug the circuit board and slot a new one in"?
I mean, really, name what you would call "a good job" that doesn't require a degree.
@boomzilla said:Think about the ridiculous job offers that float through here, where the requirements call for outrageous things and levels of responsibility for $30K (or whatever ridiculous number). People who can actually do what they're asking for can get better deals elsewhere.
OBJECTION! Requires facts not in evidence. Supposition of the premise without data.
@boomzilla said:There are certainly people who try to run their businesses as sweatshops, and this can even work for very low skilled things (like, say, flipping burgers or cleaning toilets). Once you get beyond things that take little or no skill, however, it's to their advantage to behave otherwise, and largely, they do.
OBJECTION! Requires facts not in evidence. Supposition of the premise without data.
@clively said:That said, the absolute best way to help the poor is to provide a mechanism that they can optionally take advantage of in order to better their situation. One example is free university education combined with free child care - with a requirement for making forward progress at school. I'd even go so far as paying for food and housing while they were going to school. This would be a huge benefit and ultimately the right thing to do as teaching a man to fish is far better than handing him one every Tuesday.
I say the exact opposite - precisely because I do NOT want to help the poor. By "helping the poor", you're talking about creating more competition for me and thee. I'm a Boss. You're a Boss. WE DON'T WANT COMPETITION. We want LESS competition for our spots. Because the rate of Boss positions are not going to increase as fast as the number of Boss potentials do.
We need more barriers, not less. Unless you want to be toppled from the head of your small business by a better shark.
@clively said:Both of those groups have lost sight of what it really takes to encourage and maintain a healthy growth path for the country.
It's not about the country. It's about what's good for YOU personally. Thinking any other way is frankly irrational. Remember homo economicus.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:Again, most of us have jobs in IT, and we don't all have college degrees.
An oversight that was fine in the wild and woolly days of the Cowboy IT. But since the Crash of 2000, that's all done. IT needs to be corporate class, not this cowboy crapola.
@Snooder said:If you think being an auto mechanic is either lucrative or a profession, I really have nothing to say to you.
Quoted for truth.
Only Manuel La Bor does manual labor. My father told me that one.
@boomzilla said:This was actually pretty much literally true, as the final bill wasn't even released to members of the House with enough time to read, let alone digest it.
That's actually not true. The ACA (and its many revisions) were all faithfully documented on Thomas as the revisions were made. You can go look it up. I was comparing PDFs in a political forum elsewhere every time someone made that claim. Apparently, even legislators don't know how to use Thomas.
@Soviut said:Do you really want to put something in your mouth that's prepared by someone where even that isn't there to motivate them?
We can eventually replace them with robots anyway.
@boomzilla said:A smarter President would have put these things together and "caved" to a Republican demand for a delay in Obamacare. Then we'd all still be talking about how horrible those Republicans are for preventing people from getting health insurance instead of about what a horrible law Obamacare is for cancelling policies and not having a way for people to replace them. Massive political cover plus breathing room to get stuff actually working, plus something on his record that actually looks like compromise.
...you're not really politically savvy, are you?
Here's how that would actually go. Obama caves to the Republican demand for a delay in Obamacare, his signature legislation. This splits the Democratic base, causing him to lose all control of Congress and especially the Senate. Senate Republicans take functional control of the Senate, as they are able to use the liberal base-split to their advantage to get whatever votes they want, up to a 2/3rds level.
Boehner and McConnell then take advantage of that to galvanize the Republican base and pass a repeal of the ACA. Democrats go along with it because they have lost faith in Obama and are split. Obama vetoes the repeal, House and Senate override the veto, and Obama is a dead duck for the rest of his term. Republicans regain primacy, have overriding wins in the 2014 elections due to the Democratic base split, and probably maintain primacy for the next 12 years.
It would have been STUPID for Obama to cave on his signature legislation. That makes him look WEAK. Better to roll it out, warts and all, rather than cave. Caving would have been political suicide.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:Medical care here is fast becoming unaffordable even with health insurance.
Unless you're Global/Fortune 500. Which are the only businesses that actually count.
-
@Castaigne said:
Unless you're Global/Fortune 500. Which are the only businesses that actually count.
I thought the only businesses that counted were accountancy firms…
-
@Snooder said:
Obama graduated top of his class from Harvard Law.
Whatever. His education is a red herring. We don't need a law student, we need a President. Next you'll be claiming that Chu's Nobel Prize makes him a whiz Energy Secretary.
@Snooder said:
And right now, you're falling a little more on the racist side than not.
How can you continue to claim this? There's nothing racist about pointing out a lack of relevant past experience. There's nothing racist about pointing out how excited many people were (back in 2008) that we could elect the first black President. Why do you think so many people thought he would be a great President? Since he didn't have much of a record that he could point to, I'm saying that a lot of people were willing to overlook that in order to elect a black man. You seem to think it's racist to notice this for some reason.
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
No, I'm saying that anyone who find the need to mention race when it is irrelevant is probably racist.
I think we agree on this.If we agree, then why exactly are you disagreing with me? My original point was that it's valid to characterize as racist those critics whose criticism boils down to "he's an affirmative action president" instead of actually criticizing his policies. You seem to agree here, since his race is irrelevant to his policies.
This person whose criticism boils down to "he's an affirmative action president" is a straw man. No one thinks that. Those who think he's an affirmative action president believe this because he was vastly under qualified for the job of President (this is why it was so funny for his campaign to claim that Palin, who was fairly light on experience, but vastly more than Obama, was under qualified). And because we remember how people said it would be so awesome to elect a black guy (which, from a standpoint of race relations, they're right) and we're all racists if we don't.
Why do you think this is about his policies? That's orthogonal to the point that he's incompetent as an executive. He tells us that he has no clue what's going on with things that are top priorities of his. He learns about this stuff from the newspapers.
@Snooder said:Obama was an up and coming young politician with charisma who went to Columbia and Harvard law, who'd spent decades as a legislator.
So...1997-2004 in the Illinois Senate. Then 2005-2009 in the US Senate. How long is a decade in your reality?
@Snooder said:
Before his first run for the presidency in 1980, George Bush senior's first political office was in 1966. Ronald Reagan's first political office was also in 1966 as Governor of California.That's 14 years compared to Barack Obama's 12.
Bush senior also ran the CIA. It's not elective office, but it was an executive post. Reagan was a governor of a large state.
@Snooder said:
Nixon was also 14 years from being elected to state legislature in California to his first presidential run in 1960.
Plus, you know, 8 years as Vice President. But why let history get in the way of a good theory.
@Snooder said:
Talking about either Hilary or Obama as some sort of mustang (in the military sense) who got bucked up from the ranks of nobodies is absolutely unbelievable
Hillary's career was based on her husband. She had a very short time in the Senate. You are delusional.
@Snooder said:
Truthfully, the only person in recent history with absolutely zero qualification who ran as a major party front-runner was the aborted attempt to run Elizabeth Dole before George Bush got in the 2000 election. And note, that was the Republican party.
What the hell? How is an aborted attempt a "major party front runner?" I think my "stupid" theory may have been correct.
-
@Castaigne said:
@boomzilla said:
I don't see how this is "political name calling" or ad-hominem.
You really don't see how liberal disease is ad-hom or political name calling? Really?
Dude, calling someone's political views a "disease" is not complimentary. And this is coming from a guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government.Duh, it wasn't meant to be complimentary. There was more discussion about the nuances of political name calling down thread...not real interested in rehashing that. But I'm curious where you get the idea that I'm a guy who "embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government?" You haven't actually read what I post, have you?
@Castaigne said:
I'm still not getting how you fail to see that describing one's political views as a 'disease' is not ad-hom. I guess you suffer from "incomprehension disease".
If you don't think that's ad-hom, you need to see a doctor.I think you need to read up on ad hominem. It's about attacking the man, not the argument. Saying you're a dumbass because you believe stupid things is the opposite. An appropriately ad hom attack would be to say that those beliefs are stupid because you believe in them. But you're the guy who thinks I'm all about the authoritarianism, so I'm not sure why I should expect anything else you say to make sense.
@Castaigne said:
It would have been STUPID for Obama to cave on his signature legislation. That makes him look WEAK. Better to roll it out, warts and all, rather than cave. Caving would have been political suicide.
Possibly. It partly depends on what you mean by "cave." Imagine that he'd gotten a several month delay. That's a lot of political smack to have to blame Republicans, and it would have actually been plausible, instead of their current attempts to blame Republicans for their incompetence. I think there are some Senators looking at November and wishing they had a better hand to play. I guess it just depends on whether you prefer to be seen as weak (I guess that's what we call Democrats who compromise these days) or be proven as incompetent.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
And of those ad hominem attacks, choosing to employ the ones that strike specifically at race is a choice that exposes yourself as being prejudiced about it.
That's true, and I'm not using anything like that, but for some reason, you can't seem to see that, and I can't figure out why. I have a few theories, though:
- You might just be that stupid (I don't think this is very likely).
- Like I said previously, it's how you deal with the cognitive dissonance of observing Obama and his past and your favorable opinion of his performance, because you want him to succeed, because you agree with what you believe he's trying to do.
- You are deeply affected by white guilt, and any honest conversation about race really freaks you out, and you really believe I'm making a racist argument.
I think 2 is most likely, followed by 3. Of course, there could be a mix of stuff in there. Only you can say for sure.
I have another theory about this, based purely on anecdotal evidence:
@possibly crackpot theory said:There's something about identity politics which destroys adherents' ability to adequately understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think it's related to their concept of class, which seems to be completed unrelated to the anything experienced by actual members of the class. For example, men as a class are said to control everything while most men as individuals don't even control their own households. So maybe it is cognitive dissonance, but it's a more general sort. Getting past that cognitive dissonance seems to break something else.
-
@Castaigne said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Actually, I'm one of those people who doesn't give a shit about gay marriage because it doesn't affect me.
AH HA! A Liberaltarian!
True conservatism MUST include social conservatism, or it is not conservative.
What's a Liberaltarian? I never claimed to be a conservative, true or otherwise. I claimed to be someone who doesn't give a shit. Are you running for the office of Resident Troll? Be warned, there's tough competition for that office here, though based on the rest of your post you seem to be a clear favorite.
@Castaigne said:@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I'm an employee of a Fortune 500 company. A multiple-day hospital stay would exhaust the savings of most people who work here, even after the insurance claim is paid.Medical care here is fast becoming unaffordable even with health insurance.
Unless you're Global/Fortune 500. Which are the only businesses that actually count.
-
@boomzilla said:
There's nothing racist about pointing out a lack of relevant past experience. There's nothing racist about pointing out how excited many people were (back in 2008) that we could elect the first black President. Why do you think so many people thought he would be a great President? Since he didn't have much of a record that he could point to, I'm saying that a lot of people were willing to overlook that in order to elect a black man. You seem to think it's racist to notice this for some reason.
Yes, there is. There would be nothing racist about pointing out that Obama was less experienced than other candidates (but that's not what you are saying). What IS racist though is claiming that he was absolutely and objectively unqualified. Why? Because 12 years of experience is not "nothing" and you can't legitimately make that claim with knowledge of multiple other candidates who ran for office on similar lengths of experience, and similar credentials in terms of education, career and previous electoral office. It's one thing to say that the guy with 12 years experience is less experienced than someone with 16 or 20. It's another to say that the guy with 12 years is so completely and obviously unqualified that only his race could possibly account for his success. When you say the latter, you are being racist.
-
@Snooder said:
Because 12 years of experience is not "nothing" and you can't legitimately make that claim with knowledge of multiple other candidates who ran for office on similar lengths of experience, and similar credentials in terms of education, career and previous electoral office.
All experience is not equal, and I can and continue to legitimately make that claim. I guess you can think otherwise.
@Snooder said:
It's another to say that the guy with 12 years is so completely and obviously unqualified that only his race could possibly account for his success. When you say the latter, you are being racist.
I get it. You think his "12 years" was good experience. We'll agree to disagree on that, and maybe there are enough stupid people like you to truly believe that he was honestly qualified. Note that legislative experience is generally considered to be far inferior to executive experience. Especially for one with such a lackluster legislative career as Obama.
For reference, what did you think about Palin's experience with respect to Vice President? How would you compare that to Biden, brought in for his foreign policy experience in the Senate which was mostly comprised of him getting issues wrong time after time after time.
I guess PedanticCurmudgeon was right. You simply can't understand opposing viewpoints. At least you're not alone in making ridiculous charges of racism.
-
@boomzilla said:
I get it. You think his "12 years" was good experience. We'll agree to disagree on that, and maybe there are enough stupid people like you to truly believe that he was honestly qualified. Note that legislative experience is generally considered to be far inferior to executive experience. Especially for one with such a lackluster legislative career as Obama.
So if Ted Cruz decided to run for president in 2016 (although he probably won't unless Paul Ryan breaks a leg or something), the only way he could possibly win is because he's hispanic?@boomzilla said:
For reference, what did you think about Palin's experience with respect to Vice President? How would you compare that to Biden, brought in for his foreign policy experience in the Senate which was mostly comprised of him getting issues wrong time after time after time.
Sarah Palin went from being a glorified beauty queen with a communications degree from a no-name school to mayor of a small town to governor of an unimportant state. And she hadn't even been governor 2 years before she became McCain's running mate. Biden got a law degree from Syracuse and has been in the Senate for well over a quarter of a century. For fuck's sakes, the guy has literally been in the Senate since before i was born.Let go of the partisan ideology for second and tell me, honestly, are the two even remotely comparable?
@boomzilla said:
I guess PedanticCurmudgeon was right. You simply can't understand opposing viewpoints. At least you're not alone in making ridiculous charges of racism.
No, I understand your viewpoint just fine. That's why I said I'm not really interested in a conversation about Obama's policies. What I'm trying to get you to understand and think about is how your own biases color the things you say. It seems inexplicable to you that other people can see Obama as qualified and experienced. I get that. That's the partisan bullshit clouding your vision, which is acceptable. We all kind of have these little blinkers sometimes. What isn't acceptable is when you stretch toward "affirmative action" or "white guilt" as the explanation. And what's REALLY unacceptable is saying it, then not backing down when someone points out how prejudiced what you are saying is.
-
@Snooder said:
So if Ted Cruz decided to run for president in 2016 (although he probably won't unless Paul Ryan breaks a leg or something), the only way he could possibly win is because he's hispanic?
I don't know. Though I tend to agree with him, I don't think he has the requisite experience to run. It's certainly possible that his ethnicity could give him an electoral boost. Do you think that it could not?
@Snooder said:
Sarah Palin went from being a glorified beauty queen with a communications degree from a no-name school to mayor of a small town to governor of an unimportant state. And she hadn't even been governor 2 years before she became McCain's running mate. Biden got a law degree from Syracuse and has been in the Senate for well over a quarter of a century. For fuck's sakes, the guy has literally been in the Senate since before i was born.
So...Palin had more executive experience than all of the Democratic ticket combined. Let's consider recent Democrat nominees before Obama...Sitting Vice President, Governor, Governor, Former Vice President, Governor. You have to go all the way back to McCarthy to find a Senator. And he was a disaster.
@Snooder said:
Let go of the partisan ideology for second and tell me, honestly, are the two even remotely comparable?
I agree, they aren't. Palin, while not a very experienced executive still beat Biden and Obama in the field of relevant experience.
@Snooder said:
That's why I said I'm not really interested in a conversation about Obama's policies.
So...why the fuck did you bring them up?
@Snooder said:
What I'm trying to get you to understand and think about is how your own biases color the things you say. It seems inexplicable to you that other people can see Obama as qualified and experienced. I get that. That's the partisan bullshit clouding your vision, which is acceptable.
Is English not your first language? I get how people can think he's experienced. They're just wrong. You'll note I said that Cruz didn't have the right experience for President. He might or might not step up and be a competent executive, but he doesn't have a track record to judge that, just like Obama didn't before he was elected. Obama has not stepped up to become a competent executive, as I've documented up thread. And that has zero to do with his ideology.
@Snooder said:
What isn't acceptable is when you stretch toward "affirmative action" or "white guilt" as the explanation. And what's REALLY unacceptable is saying it, then not backing down when someone points out how prejudiced what you are saying is.
I guess you either ignored or forgot about all the stuff about how we'd all be super racist if we didn't elect Obama. It was going to be a nationally cathartic moment, helping to expel our past sins. Or maybe you just think that all of that hoopla didn't influence any voters. You probably aren't the only one, but just because you're a moron, I don't have to accept your intellectually lazy and ridiculous assertion that I'm racist because I notice politically incorrect things.
Does it really pain you that much that you can't rebut my argument about Obama's executive incompetence? How are you not angry at him for fucking up these policies that you claim to like?
Did you hear Valerie Jarett's claim that he's so uber smart, that he's, like, totally bored by "normal" stuff and is never challenged?
@Valerie Jarrett said:“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”
Does that sound like reality to you? Does it match what you've observed in this White House? Or does it sound more like an excuse for doing such a terrible job. Hey, maybe he is just too smart to pay attention to stuff like what the people under him are doing. But even if you believe that steaming pile, doesn't that just add evidence that he's not a good executive? If the job of an executive is so below him that he just can't keep focused (and there's plenty of evidence that he's clueless about what goes on) then he's not really a good executive. We've been able to watch him as President and see the reality of his incompetence. If he'd been, say, governor of Illinois (and kept out of jail) maybe he'd have had some executive experience that would have exposed his nature, and we could have avoided this clown. Why do you think being a legislator would give him experience required of an executive? Maybe if he were intensively involved in oversight of the executive branch. At least that would be some contact. I don't think he had much of that, though. It seems like he spent a lot of time as a US Senator campaigning, anyways.
You can defend his policies. Fine. But how can you possibly defend his nonchalance towards his responsibilities? Is it the people he surrounds himself with? Then why hasn't he gotten rid of them? That's what a strong executive would do...get someone in there who can do the job. Your only defense to all of this is to create a straw man of a racist. Your argument is completely bankrupt. Do you disagree with Obama that Obamacare is the signature achievement of his administration? Do you think they've done a good job with the implementation? You think that delaying regulations for political purposes was a sound idea?
At least Chris Matthews is entertaining with his wild accusations of racism. yours are dull. C'mon, be creative! Try to fit racism in without a straw man, at least.
-
@Snooder said:
They always say that. I should have mentioned that in my crackpot theory.No, I understand your viewpoint just fine.
-
@boomzilla said:
Your only defense to all of this is to create a straw man of a racist.
Let me bring this argument back to its root so you understand what's actually going on here. You said that democrats cry racism against anyone who criticizes Obama. I said that's because often times the people criticizing really are racists, (or do so in racist ways) and provided three examples of racist criticism. You ignored the first two, which i'll take as a tacit admission that they are racist and indefensible, but choose to defend the third example. Your defense wasn't that said example is a "straw man" and such critics don't actually exist. Instead, your defense was to say that it isn't racist at all and then compounded it by doing exactly the sort of fact-ignoring, bullshit-spouting, patently racist criticism I was talking about.
You agreed earlier that people who bring up Obama's race when it's irrelevant are racists. His race is irrelevant to his experience or lack thereof. Therefore people who bring up his race when talking about his lack of experience are racist. If your contention is that none (or very few) of those who criticize Obama bring up his race when it's irrelevant then that's one thing. But that's not your contention. It can't be; when you've just spent several hours doing that exact thing. And with such a remarkable lack of ingenuity or knowledge that suggests these are arguments copied and parroted from minds other than your own.
-
@Snooder said:
You ignored the first two, which i'll take as a tacit admission that they are racist and indefensible, but choose to defend the third example.
Eh...the guy with the baboon picture. Whatever. Probably racist, possibly just derivative of the Bush = Chimp meme. I don't see how Muslim sleeper cell is racist. A bit conspiratorial, possibly Islamophobic (though there are certainly elements of Islam that are legitimately our enemies).
@Snooder said:
Your defense wasn't that said example is a "straw man" and such critics don't actually exist. Instead, your defense was to say that it isn't racist at all and then compounded it by doing exactly the sort of fact-ignoring, bullshit-spouting, patently racist criticism I was talking about.
My initial response was to point out some legitimate reasons that one might suspect a whiff of affirmative action by using specific examples and reasoning. That you can't tell the difference between that and "fact-ignoring, bullshit-spouting, patently racist criticism" says more about you than it does about me or any critic of Obama.
@Snooder said:
You agreed earlier that people who bring up Obama's race when it's irrelevant are racists. His race is irrelevant to his experience or lack thereof. Therefore people who bring up his race when talking about his lack of experience are racist.
Sure. But that's not the same as talking about the factors that lead to his election. Maybe you didn't pay attention to any news or anything back in 2008 (traveling abroad maybe?), so you didn't recall how his race was a part of the campaign. And his didn't have to bring it up at all to make that true.
@Snooder said:
If your contention is that none (or very few) of those who criticize Obama bring up his race when it's irrelevant then that's one thing. But that's not your contention. It can't be; when you've just spent several hours doing that exact thing. And with such a remarkable lack of ingenuity or knowledge that suggests these are arguments copied and parroted from minds other than your own.
We'll apply your logic to this thread to note that you were the one who brought up his race. I'm sure there are people who are vile racists who oppose Obama. Just like there are vile racists who support him. You were the one who brought up the affirmative action stuff, and I thoroughly laid out a case for why he was elected in part due to something like affirmative action. It was completely different from my original claim. You would tell me that because some dude somewhere said a racist thing, it's legitimate to dismiss as racist someone who thinks Obamacare is a shitty law.
I'm amused how your point is proved because I responded to something you said. I'm not sure how it was that I brought it up when I was responding to you. You really should learn not to bring up arguments that you can't defend. The charge of racism has lost a lot of its bite due to people like you. In a lot of ways, that's sad, because there certainly are racist people out there who should be shamed or whatever, but you've cheapened the charge, and maybe can't even recognize that you're using it in a totally bullshit way.
-
@dkf said:
@Castaigne said:
Unless you're Global/Fortune 500. Which are the only businesses that actually count.
I thought the only businesses that counted were accountancy firms…
HA! Good one.
@boomzilla said:Duh, it wasn't meant to be complimentary. There was more discussion about the nuances of political name calling down thread...not real interested in rehashing that. But I'm curious where you get the idea that I'm a guy who "embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government?" You haven't actually read what I post, have you?
I did read what you posted, but you obviously failed at reading comprehension. I do not think YOU are a guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government. I am the guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government. Here, let me parse it out for you grammatically:
'Dude, calling someone's political views a "disease" is not complimentary. And this (THE FACT STATED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE) is coming from a guy (THE PERSON WHO STATED THE FACT, IE, ME) who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government.'
Is that clear enough for you, brohame? Or do I need to spell it out more?
@boomzilla said:I think you need to read up on ad hominem. It's about attacking the man, not the argument. Saying you're a dumbass because you believe stupid things is the opposite. An appropriately ad hom attack would be to say that those beliefs are stupid because you believe in them. But you're the guy who thinks I'm all about the authoritarianism, so I'm not sure why I should expect anything else you say to make sense.
Right on how ad-hom works, incorrect in the application. If I say that someone is saying stupid things because they suffer from a liberal disease, as you did, I am saying the PERSON is deficient BECAUSE DISEASED. The assumption from the statement is that all liberals think the way they do because they are diseased, not that the liberal ideas are bad. It also creates the assumption that if liberal thinking is "diseased", than conservative thinking (its opposite), must be healthy. An attack of the man, not the argument.
@boomzilla said:Possibly. It partly depends on what you mean by "cave."
Anything that causes Obama to look like he gave way in the face of Republican effort. If Obama had done what you proposed, the next thing we'd see is Cruz all over the news boasting about how he had fucked Obama up the ass and made him suck the shit off his cock. He'd be crowing from here til doomsday.
@boomzilla said:Imagine that he'd gotten a several month delay. That's a lot of political smack to have to blame Republicans, and it would have actually been plausible, instead of their current attempts to blame Republicans for their incompetence.
Disagree. If there had been a delay, you would have seen a repeal with 4-6 weeks by Congress. Democrats would have perceived that they lost the battle and would defect in droves in an attempt to save their seats.
@boomzilla said:I guess it just depends on whether you prefer to be seen as weak (I guess that's what we call Democrats who compromise these days) or be proven as incompetent.
Weak has been successfully defined by the Tea Partiers as anyone who compromises. You compromise? WEAK. Rubio compromised; that makes him a RINO. Lindsey Graham compromised; that makes him a RINO. Boehner compromised; that makes him a RINO. McConnell compromised; that makes him a RINO. Anyone who compromises is a weak sister who needs to be cockslapped into conservative submission. No better than a Democrat.
With THAT as the defining rhetoric of today, which would you prefer to be seen as? Incompetent can be smoothed over, you can get re-elected. Compromise...that gets you primaried. Tossed. Whichever party you happen to be.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:here's something about identity politics which destroys adherents' ability to adequately understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think it's related to their concept of class, which seems to be completed unrelated to the anything experienced by actual members of the class. For example, men as a class are said to control everything while most men as individuals don't even control their own households. So maybe it is cognitive dissonance, but it's a more general sort. Getting past that cognitive dissonance seems to break something else.
Hello there, Smerdis. Bringing your biological determinism bullshit into play here?
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:What's a Liberaltarian? I never claimed to be a conservative, true or otherwise. I claimed to be someone who doesn't give a shit. Are you running for the office of Resident Troll? Be warned, there's tough competition for that office here, though based on the rest of your post you seem to be a clear favorite.
A liberaltarian is a libertarian. Don't you know? Libertarians are just liberals without any ethics or morals whatsoever. Liberals at least believe in Communism.
As for trolling, I'm not, but you just keep on thinking what you want to think, Smerdis. If you don't like my rhetorical style, you know where to put it.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:I'm an employee of a Fortune 500 company. A multiple-day hospital stay would exhaust the savings of most people who work here, even after the insurance claim is paid.
Oh, please. If you work real Fortune 500, you've got a max deductible of maybe $1200 with a $5000 out-of-pocket limit. That's just a few months savings. So don't try that with me.
-
-
@Castaigne said:
I did read what you posted, but you obviously failed at reading comprehension. I do not think YOU are a guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government. I am the guy who embraces authoritarianism as a valid method of government.
Sorry, it read to me like you were talking about what I said, and playing a typically wrong stereotype that true authoritarians like to play against the American right. This makes much more sense, and I think we're both in agreement.
@Castaigne said:
Weak has been successfully defined by the Tea Partiers as anyone who compromises. You compromise? WEAK. Rubio compromised; that makes him a RINO. Lindsey Graham compromised; that makes him a RINO. Boehner compromised; that makes him a RINO. McConnell compromised; that makes him a RINO. Anyone who compromises is a weak sister who needs to be cockslapped into conservative submission. No better than a Democrat.
Yes, because "compromise" with liberals has meant giving them some (or all) of what they want and none of what non-liberals want.
@Castaigne said:
A liberaltarian is a libertarian. Don't you know? Libertarians are just liberals without any ethics or morals whatsoever. Liberals at least believe in Communism.
A liberaltarian is a liberal who thinks that supporting a couple of civil liberties makes them a champion of freedom. It's usually a thin veneer over an authoritarian core, very similar to communism. Now I know you're trolling, because actual liberals aren't honest enough to admit that sort of thing about themselves.
-
@dhromed said:
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN -50 POINTS
Fine, I'll be more explicit. If someone says they work for a Fortune 500 company and they don't have adequate health insurance? They're lying. Even the low-rents at a Fortune 500 get the plush bennies.
@boomzilla said:
Now I know you're trolling, because actual liberals aren't honest enough to admit that sort of thing about themselves.
Again, you fail to comprehend. I am not a liberal. I am a pre-Burkean Conservative. Y'know, the type that thinks the Founding Fathers were too liberal?
-
@Castaigne said:
If someone says they work for a Fortune 500 company and they don't have adequate health insurance? They're lying.
Maybe he's like #501.
-
@Castaigne said:
Fine, I'll be more explicit. If someone says they work for a Fortune 500 company and they don't have adequate health insurance? They're lying. Even the low-rents at a Fortune 500 get the plush bennies.
Top half of that list. 'Plush' is not what I'd call them. They're adequate, but only marginal compared to what used to be the norm.And there's 'work for a Fortune 500' and 'work FOR a Fortune 500'. The entire actual workforce of our company is entirely contracted out. The whole thing. The only people who actually work for the company directly are management track, supervisory, HR and some key knowledge workers who are bribed on as a case-by-case basis to keep them from quitting. The benefits those guys get vary widely depending on their contracting firm and how much they extort from the contracting firm (the contracting firms we use for programmers are AWFUL).
-
@clively said:
My wife then explained that we owned the company and every dollar it spent was a dollar out of our pockets...[snip]...She simply suffers from that liberal disease which believes there is some incredible entity known as "They" which pays for everything. I simply don't have the words to convey the true depth of my inability to understand Them. No wonder this country is fucked.
No, I really don't think that is what is happening here. In a business, every business expense should not be a "dollar out of your pocket" unless you are running a sole proprietership or a partnership with NO legal liability protection. Which is really fucking stupid. I mean absolute gorram fucking stupid.
So it shouldn't be money out of your pocket; it should be money out of the corporate accounts of CLIVELY LLC, DBA "CLIVELY'S IT STUFF". Your business money should be WAY separate from your personal money. CLIVELY LLC is the "They" in this situation.
That you don't understand what your M-I-L is talking about means your business is ripe to be sued. Sue the business, take your house, car, AND all your possessions! JACKPOT! (And all your employees' stuff too. I love a lack of legal liability protection.)
I think you didn't understand the "out of pocket" expression. Even with an LLC, if it's a private company (so you and your wife are the only stakeholders), then the money in the company's account belongs to you. Sure, there are a few hoops to go through to get it. The company has to declare how much of it's money is profit, pay taxes, then the money has to be transferred to the stakeholders. But if the company pays for the extra ticket, that money is deducted from the company's profits, which means they get less money from the company. There isn't a "they" they can ask for the ticket. It's their money, even if there is a bit of insulation between them and the money.
The M.I.L. seemed to be under the impression that even as owners of their own business, there was some boss they could plead to to buy an extra ticket, resulting in a net gain for them. The in laws apparently couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that they are the bosses, and that the company's profits go directly to them.
-
@Weng said:
@Castaigne said:
Fine, I'll be more explicit. If someone says they work for a Fortune 500 company and they don't have adequate health insurance? They're lying. Even the low-rents at a Fortune 500 get the plush bennies.
Top half of that list. 'Plush' is not what I'd call them. They're adequate, but only marginal compared to what used to be the norm.
I'm somewhat curious what you define as "used to be the norm."
The interesting thing about the healthcare brouhaha is that often people are actually discussing very, very different aspects of coverage. There is a meaningful difference between the sort of healthcare coverage needed for a broken leg versus the sort of care needed for aggressive long-term cancer treatment. And, back in the day when people talked about health insurance they were talking about the former. Because the latter just didn't exist. Doc tells you you got cancer and 3 months to live? You died. Now, you'll get multiple rounds of chemo, surgery, visit 7 different specialists and then complain that the insurance company won't pay for you to fly to LA and be included in the very latest cancer treatment study with drugs that haven't gotten full FDA approval yet.
I don't think that "broken leg insurance" is particularly deficient in the US. I'm fairly certain that even the shittiest health insurance plan will pay for you to go to a hospital and get a cast without bankrupting you. Contrast that with way back when people actually died of simple shit like broken legs, or common colds. Having access to treatment for those, in my opinion, is "adequate" healthcare. And yet when people talk about the healthcare system being broken, the image that I think of as a "broken" system is one where people don't have access to that sort of basic healthcare.
-
@Castaigne said:
< world-class trolling snipped >
10/10. You now have my vote for Resident Troll. Well played, sir.
-
re: "broken leg insurance"
Actually for many (including those with full time jobs) this is very problematic. It can easily cost over one months net income for a lower income person to make a simple emergency visit.
There has been an increase in "standalone emergency rooms" (often run by a hospital, but not physically part of a major hospital). By all accounts the level of care (for non-Trauma I type) is relatively equivalent. The average "Walk in door facility fee" (not including doctor fees, lab fees, nursing fees, any actual services) is between $800 and $1000
Even if a person have "Good" insurance, they are likely to have to pay the majority of this out of pocket [deductible + co-pay]..
-
@Weng said:
Top half of that list. 'Plush' is not what I'd call them. They're adequate, but only marginal compared to what used to be the norm.
I really haven't seen benefits change downward much for actual employees of a Fortune 500. They're plush compared to anything a small business has offered ever. Small businesses don't even offer 401K matching, much less possible pensions.
@Weng said:
And there's 'work for a Fortune 500' and 'work FOR a Fortune 500'. The entire actual workforce of our company is entirely contracted out. The whole thing. The only people who actually work for the company directly are management track, supervisory, HR and some key knowledge workers who are bribed on as a case-by-case basis to keep them from quitting. The benefits those guys get vary widely depending on their contracting firm and how much they extort from the contracting firm (the contracting firms we use for programmers are AWFUL).
I don't count contractors as people working for a Fortune 500 company. They CONTRACT to a Fortune 500; they're disposables, use them and lose them. Only those who work for the company directly count. Everyone else....well, they're just one step away from becoming an Obsolete.
@Kian said:
ven with an LLC, if it's a private company (so you and your wife are the only stakeholders), then the money in the company's account belongs to you. Sure, there are a few hoops to go through to get it.
No, tha'ts generally just considered to be bad accounting. The corporation, by law, is an entity in and of itself, separate from the employees, even if one of those employees is the owner. It is the corporation's money; it will be the corporation's money even if the owner dies. Remember, Corporation Whatever LLC is a distinct entity itself, possessed of several legal rights and existing as separate from the owner/founder/whatever. To think of it as "your" money in any way is really to embezzle it from yourself. Bad idea. Seen plenty go down from doing that.
@Kian said:
But if the company pays for the extra ticket, that money is deducted from the company's profits, which means they get less money from the company.
The profit should go to the company anyway, not to owner's pocket. Again, bad money decisions. If the owner wants that money to go to them, then they should increase their salary yearly to meet profit expectations.
@Kian said:
The in laws apparently couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that they are the bosses, and that the company's profits go directly to them.
You see, you're really talking about a sole proprietership or a partnership with no separation there. You just don't know that you are. You should study up on the law on this sometime.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
10/10. You now have my vote for Resident Troll. Well played, sir.
Not trolling, brosephus. I know EXACTLY what essay on Rational Wiki that was cribbed from. You really think someone wouldn't notice?
@TheCPUWizard said:
Even if a person have "Good" insurance, they are likely to have to pay the majority of this out of pocket [deductible + co-pay]..
Uh, what deductible? If you're Fortune 500, you're going Platinum on the corporate exchange. No deductibles, bay-bee, just $100 co-pay for admission and all else covered. Ok, if you're really frugal you might consider the Gold level, with its $600 deductible/person, but no one is going to go lower than that. The Silver and Bronze plans are for the low-rent chumps. Or the Quiverfull types. (No real difference there, pretty much.)
-
@Castaigne said:
To think of it as "your" money in any way is really to embezzle it from yourself. Bad idea. Seen plenty go down from doing that.
Did someone prosecute them or was it a shooting-your-own-foot thing? Or both?Edit: sorry for the quoting fail. I'm not sure what went wrong.
-
@Castaigne said:
The next troll who admits to trolling will be the first. You get extra Master Troll points for implying that I'm incapable of independent thought.@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
10/10. You now have my vote for Resident Troll. Well played, sir.
Not
trolling, brosephus. I know EXACTLY what essay on Rational Wiki that
was cribbed from. You really think someone wouldn't notice?
-
@Castaigne said:
@Kian said:
ven with an LLC, if it's a private company (so you
and your wife are the only stakeholders), then the money in the
company's account belongs to you. Sure, there are a few hoops to go
through to get it.No, tha'ts generally just considered
to be bad accounting. The corporation, by law, is an entity in and of
itself, separate from the employees, even if one of those employees is
the owner. It is the corporation's money; it will be the corporation's
money even if the owner dies. Remember, Corporation Whatever LLC is a
distinct entity itself, possessed of several legal rights and existing
as separate from the owner/founder/whatever. To think of it as "your"
money in any way is really to embezzle it from yourself. Bad idea. Seen
plenty go down from doing that.@Kian said:
But if the
company pays for the extra ticket, that money is deducted from the
company's profits, which means they get less money from the company.The profit should go to the company anyway, not to
owner's pocket. Again, bad money decisions. If the owner wants that
money to go to them, then they should increase their salary yearly to
meet profit expectations.@Kian said:
The in laws apparently couldn't wrap their minds
around the idea that they are the bosses, and that the company's profits
go directly to them.You see, you're really talking
about a sole proprietership or a partnership with no separation there.
You just don't know that you are. You should study up on the law on this
sometime.I think you are forgetting what the point of making a corporation is. With your reasoning, if I own a corporation but I'm not employed by it, I gain no benefit at all. Which you should be able to recognize as nonsense. Yes, the corporation is a separate entity, and yes they have their own accounts and the owner can't draw funds from the company's accounts, or use the corporate card for personal expenses (which would essentially be tax evasion). But the company may pay dividends to the owners (not necessarily empty out it's coffers, but however much it wants to), which means splitting the profits among the stockholders, which in this case is just the two owners. Buying a ticket for the wife would deduct from this, meaning less money for them later.
-
@Castaigne said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
Even if a person have "Good" insurance, they are likely to have to pay the majority of this out of pocket [deductible + co-pay]..
Uh, what deductible? If you're Fortune 500, you're going Platinum on the corporate exchange. No deductibles, bay-bee, just $100 co-pay for admission and all else covered. Ok, if you're really frugal you might consider the Gold level, with its $600 deductible/person, but no one is going to go lower than that. The Silver and Bronze plans are for the low-rent chumps. Or the Quiverfull types. (No real difference there, pretty much.)
I happen to be in a contract with a Fortune 100 firm right now - so I decided to poll the people I am working with (mainly technical staff). With one exception, everyone of them had annual deductibles of over $1000. Many (just under 50%) of those with family coverage had annual deductibles of $5000 or more.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
I happen to be in a contract with a Fortune 100 firm right now - so I decided to poll the people I am working with (mainly technical staff). With one exception, everyone of them had annual deductibles of over $1000. Many (just under 50%) of those with family coverage had annual deductibles of $5000 or more.
How the hell did someone have a deductible under $1000? This sounds like they are using black magic of somekind to get health insurance.
-
@boomzilla said:
Jeez, it says Dallas, TX right there on his profile, you illiterate cunt.
There's no country by the name of Dallas, TX, you moron.
-
@Alex Papadumbass said:
@boomzilla said:
Jeez, it says Dallas, TX right there on his profile, you illiterate cunt.
There's no country by the name of Dallas, TX, you moron.
Wait, you've been registered since last July?And your name is a direct attack on the site's creator?
And you're not banned?
-
@Alex Papadumbass said:
@boomzilla said:
Jeez, it says Dallas, TX right there on his profile, you illiterate cunt.
There's no country by the name of Dallas, TX, you moron.
You've never actually known any Texans, have you?
-
@Ben L. said:
And you're not banned?
What kind of thoughtcrime fascist forum do you think we're running here?
A doubleplusgood one!
-
@boomzilla said:
You've never actually known any Texans, have you?
I've known a few, but they were from Austin.
-
@dkf said:
@boomzilla said:
You've never actually known any Texans, have you?
I've known a few, but they were from Austin.
From as in "born there" or as in "moved there from Seattle."
-
Everyone knows there are no longer native Texans. We transplants have taken over.
-
@Snooder said:
From as in "born there" or as in "moved there from Seattle."
Why would anybody do that! I thought Austin was where all the tech people from corn-belt states went when they realized there aren't any IT jobs in Topeka.
-
@Snooder said:
From as in "born there" or as in "moved there from Seattle."
No idea. I tend to think it a bit rude to ask people for a full history of where they've lived (given I've no professional need for that info).
-
@dkf said:
@Snooder said:
From as in "born there" or as in "moved there from Seattle."
No idea. I tend to think it a bit rude to ask people for a full history of where they've lived (given I've no professional need for that info).Generally because there's a rather large cultural difference between the sort of person who grew up in the Hill Country (or wishes they did), drinks Shiner, hangs out at Barton Springs, and goes down to Luckenbach every year or so; and the sort of person who shops at Whole Foods, drinks some bullshit 'artisanal' ale, and protests furiously about the exploitation of the third world. And it's important to know who is who so that you don't confuse them.
-
@locallunatic said:
I have an EPO plan, which has no deductible. I'm starting to realize that it's a false savings, though, because the plan is more expensive than PPO and is 80% coinsurance instead of 90%.How the hell did someone have a deductible under $1000? This sounds like they are using black magic of somekind to get health insurance.
-
@konnichimade said:
I have an EPO plan, which has no deductible. I'm starting to realize that it's a false savings, though, because the plan is more expensive than PPO and is 80% coinsurance instead of 90%.
What about annual out of pocket limits? You have to know your own situation and what you expect to spend and analyze in that light. In this case you're also presumably trading off a smaller network of doctors for that reduction. And possibly trading off easy access to actual care, too, depending on the network.
