Messages over 15 days do remain if they aren't displaced (though the link leads nowhere)
Messages under 15 days are deleted automatically when the box fills, and cannot be recovered.
I'm actually more annoyed by the latter. I wrote a comment in one of the front page conservative circle-jerks that may have set a new personal record for most moderations. Unfortunately the comments telling me about the moderations applied to it are all gone forever, so I can't tally them up any more. The number of replies - currently at 74 - is almost certainly a new personal record for one comment. It's too bad that even the moderation summary is utterly worthless - I know it received more than just "insightful", "interesting", and "troll" mods. And for that matter, the arbitrary percentages of those three only total to 80%.
I expect this means that from now on Randall Munroe will be described on slashdot as "a raging leftoid" or some similar label.
Included in those replies, though, was a a genuine you-win-the-internet-with-that-hyperpolic-nonsense reply. Not that this kind of conservative nonsense is new here, but the enthusiasm with which it was shared - even this late in the discussion - was impressive. The new user behind this has written only around 2 dozen comments to date, the oldest dating to last August.
I will say though, he made me laugh so hard at his nonsense that I felt compelled to reply. So I guess he trolled me fairly well.
If Obamacare's insurance reforms break the market, that calculus still won't change: Most people will still have insurance they like, and they will not be willing to give it up in order to solve problems in the individual market -- which now covers about 5 percent of the population and is expected to ultimately cover something over that. Even if the individual market functionally disappears, most people will still be covered, and most politicians will be unwilling to endorse a program that takes away what they have. There is no path to single payer from even a spectacular Obamacare implosion -- for the same reason that there was no path to single payer before Obamacare was passed.
Ironically, single payer seems much more plausible if the system succeeds. One possible path along which the health-care law could develop is that more and more employers dump folks onto the exchanges, breaking the link between employment and insurance for millions of Americans. If that happens but other problems remain -- such as rising premiums -- then you can imagine a series of reforms that ultimately leads to single payer, probably starting with a public option. Employers would probably still provide supplemental health insurance as a benefit, the way some do in the U.K., but it would be a relatively cheap add-on, not a huge portion of your compensation package.
So dash your hopes and allay your fears. An Obamacare failure would be bad in many ways, and it would mean significant changes for the insurance market. But we're not getting the National Health Service anytime soon.
However, I will point out something else they should be paying attention to at this stage. They want the POTUS out no matter the cost, but the clock is not in their favor. We are down to about 31 months to the 2016 election (where of course Obama cannot run, conspiracy theories be damned).
The last time a POTUS was forced out was of course Watergate. If we look at the timeline on that, we see that the investigation on that started February 1973. Nixon resigned the following August; roughly 18 months later.
If the government of today is so bloated and overgrown (from the standard conservative mantra) then there is no reason to expect that an investigation could bring about a resignation in less time than it did in 1972-1973. If it even took twice as long, then the clock has already ran out for the conservative dream scenario of forcing Obama out.
Not that they would let reality get in the way, though. And obviously budgets are not important when there is a president waiting to get thrown out of the white house, right?
I encourage all to dive in and see just how stupid a conservative can make himself look in one discussion. I wasn't even planning to reply to his comment, but I was the 4th word of it so I figured I'd at least try to familiarize him with the situation. From there, hilarity ensues as:
he uses no facts, whatsoever, to try to make a grand statement (strike one!)
I point out that he did that, and clarify the matter so he can take another swing at it
He then attempts to make one fact, but completely misses the point because he's too angry to read(strike two!)
I then use his actual words to show that he's a liar (strike three!)
He then tries to play fast and loose with the English Language to avoid having to admit to being wrong (already past strike three, but still swinging!)
I point out that he just fell on his face again (really, go back to the dugout!)
He then returns to the usual MO of just accusing anyone who disagrees with him of "lying" (can you strike out twice if you refuse to leave after strike three and miss three more times?)
For bonus points, feel free to go back and count the number of times that he was reduced to slinging silly insults at me, rather than actually dealing with the matter at hand. Extra thanks to smitty for this one. I don't think he intended to make pudge look like a buffoon (not that it's hard) but he ended up dong it nonetheless. Perhaps this is why pudge doesn't come around here very often any more?
Certainly, if it was as common of a tactic as they claim it should be trivial for the to produce tons of examples. And coming up with just one should be far easier than a cake walk. So how many could they come up with?
That's right, not a single, solitary example. At one point they gave a link to a comedy central (daily show) clip that did not help the claim. Earlier a highly partisan collection of sound bites was quoted as well.
Not very impressive. Of course we don't really pull in the most accomplished conservative journalists here on slashdot, so there may be actual examples out there somewhere in the world. we just likely will never see them here.
I've realized a while ago that American conservatives have their own "sequel" to Godwin's Law, and it goes something like this
Given a long enough discussion of politics with a conservative, they will try to get you to call them racist to end the discussion
It is somewhat the inverse of "race baiting", perhaps best called "racist baiting". I think we can call it the "Nobama Hypothesis" as I suspect many of the people who go for this play have the oh-so-clever "Nobama" bumper sticker on their car (likely often the variety with the hammer & sickle for an "O", and likely not far from their terrorist hunting permit).
But when some idiot felt it useful to bring up the Pinto, I decided to respond:
The Pinto was 40 years ago. You conveniently overlooked the money they spent correcting that problem, and the fact that the Pinto has been out of production for a long time. That error didn't last the full run of the Pinto, for that matter.
But no, let's go ahead and line up to bash the American company. Need I remind you what the Japanese cars were like in the 1970s? Toyotas were barely able to reach freeway speed. Hondas were too small for a large segment of Americans (ie, people more than 6' tall) to drive comfortably. Both had rust problems galore. But yet they improved. Now people speak fondly of their Japanese cars. In the 1970s nobody would have believed that Toyota and Honda could some day make competitive luxury cars, yet now we have Lexus and Acura.
And if we look to South Korea, the turn around is even more dramatic (at least with regards to how quickly it happened). Hyundai from the 80s and 90s were utter garbage. They probably never should have been allowed on American freeways but we let them on anyways. They weren't reliable, comfortable, or safe. Yet now Hyundai and Kia are very competent little cars.
But yet we keep bashing Ford for what happened 40 years ago. If we did that to the Japanese and Korean cars they would have gone bankrupt years ago.
In case you haven't noticed, Ford Fusion has beat Toyota Camry in initial quality, best midsize, and car of the year more than once and from multiple reviewers. But yet obviously it is more important to remind people about what Ford did when Nixon was president.
You cannot make a child through sodomy
Which appears to be yet another flimsy excuse for supporting homophobia. But if we really want to run with that flimsy statement, then we should realize that if that is really the only concern then there are many other sexual acts that have the same outcome:
- Sex with a post-menopausal woman
- Sex with a man who has had a vasectomy
- Sex with a woman who has had her tubes tied or a hysterectomy
- Sex with anyone who has had gender reassignment surgery
Furthermore, sex with a pregnant woman cannot produce another baby beyond the one already in the womb.
So why are all of those acts not banned as well? Why don't we support hatred against people who participate in them>
Yeah, that's been debunked: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/ [heritage.org] But you keep playing that card as you whistle past the graveyard, girl. Obama's perfidy is too publicly on display. The Democrats own it.
This was in response to my reminding him that the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 (aka the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare") was indeed driven primarily by goals of the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to bring over conservative votes. We all know of course that it resembles "RomneyCare" from Massachusetts more than it does anything that Obama or any liberal championed while running for office, but what Smitty shared here in an attempt to distance conservatives from the 2010 bill only cements their legacy within it:
we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage
Sound familiar? Anyone who paid attention to the SCOTUS ruling on the act knows that the supreme court ruled the mandate constitutional because it is
Naturally it was - after all, they wrote the damned bill.
Staples to close 225 stores in US by the end of 2014.