Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Instant conservative

Comments Filter:
  • There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices. We had this shitty hand-out for the insurance companies, which kept the lousy system going. Everything that anyone else proposed had the same end result of keeping the lousy system going, and generally giving more power to the health insurance companies in other ways.

    In other words, we were destined to higher insurance prices regardless of which lousy bill went into law. Even if no bill had been signed at all, we would have
    • Modern liberalism can seem, to the non-adherent, a systematic denial of responsibility for everything.
      People are hormone-driven lumps of flesh on the low end, and captives of capitalist caprice on the high end.
      And I support and defend the Constitutional right to knobbery, though I lament it getting too close to levers of power.
      • So I point out that this would have happened anyways, and instead of trying to make an argument counter to that, you attack "modern liberalism". That pretty well matches the obstructionist drive to focus first on destroying the other guy and much much much much much much later on actually benefiting anyone other than your campaign contributors with action. Thank you for supporting my claim that you are driven primarily by your deep motivation of hyperpartisanship above all else.
        • That pretty well matches the obstructionist drive to focus first on destroying the other guy and much much much much much much later on actually benefiting anyone other than your campaign contributors with action. Thank you for supporting my claim that you are driven primarily by your deep motivation of hyperpartisanship above all else.

          So we're on this economic course toward total ruin, and, perhaps belatedly, some are trying to do something about it. I suppose that, in keeping with the rest of the contextual silliness, you can accuse those disinterested in joining in the ruin of being 'obstructionist', and being 'hyperpartisan'. Given the way the Vichy GOP has produced a series of fatwahs against the Tea Party wing, you'll understand if I have trouble distinguishing the traditional parties apart.

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices.

      False, obviously. McCain's proposal in the 2008 election would have decreased the cost of insurance, and everyone knows it. By simply taking away the the business deduction for health insurance premiums for employees (as well as any mandates for businesses supplying such insurance to its employees), and giving individuals a tax credit for purchasing insurance, the immediate increase in competition in insurance would have pushed prices down. The effect would increase over time as people would take on more

      • There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices.

        False, obviously. McCain's proposal in the 2008 election

        So in 2008 McCain came up with a proposal and President Obama responded by ... oh, wait. Obama was a senator not a president in 2008. For all of 2008, in spite of the selective amnesia exhibited by some conservatives, the president was George Bush.

        Furthermore, McCain remained a senator after the 2008 election (and is still one to this day). He could have elected to present the bill to the senate, yet he did not.

        The best example I can find of his proposal is this one [contingencies.org]; please offer a better one if y

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          So in 2008 McCain came up with a proposal and President Obama responded by ... oh, wait.

          No. There is nothing to wait for. You didn't have that restriction in the claim you made, so it does not apply.

          Furthermore, McCain remained a senator after the 2008 election (and is still one to this day). He could have elected to present the bill to the senate, yet he did not.

          Wow, are we really going to be THAT dishonest, here? The Republicans (not McCain, but as a whole) came out with a different proposal, and the Democrats attacked the Republicans for bothering to come out with a proposal at all, since it had no chance of passing and was therefore a waste of time. Spare us the bullshit.

          The fact is, this proposal was well-known and out there. No, it was not in bil

          • So in 2008 McCain came up with a proposal and President Obama responded by ... oh, wait.

            No. There is nothing to wait for. You didn't have that restriction in the claim you made, so it does not apply.

            The restriction was understood by everyone who was in this conversation before you came and inserted yourself into it. I'm sorry that you don't understand that, but it is the topic of discussion. If we open it up to any proposition that was made, by any person, at any time, then there would be too many proposals for the discussion to have any meaning whatsoever.

            The best example I can find of his proposal is this one ...

            ... which disproves the claim you made, that "There was no alternative plan proposed that would not have increased prices."

            Except that it was not made during the administration of the current POTUS, and was not introduced to congress. In other words it is not releva

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              The restriction was ...

              Never stated, nor implied by context. Move along.

              it is the topic of discussion

              False. The context was simply "Obamacare" and alternatives to it. If you think that the proposal from the guy running against Obama for President, while Obama was running on the idea that (mostly) became "Obamacare" less than a year before it was introduced in the Senate, is implied to be out of scope of the discussion, you're dishonest or a moron.

              Since you imply that including such a proposal in the discussion would "open it up to any proposition that was

              • The restriction was ...

                Never stated, nor implied by context.

                I'm sorry that context continues to be such a challenge for you. I really don't know how you can function in society without a basic understanding of it.

                False. The context was simply "Obamacare" and alternatives to it.

                For something to have been an alternative to the ACA it needs to have been, at the very least, proposed at the same time as the ACA. A true alternative would have been proposed in congress at the same time. What you have referred to meets neither of those criteria.

                If you think that the proposal from the guy running against Obama for President, while Obama was running on the idea that (mostly) became "Obamacare" less than a year before it was introduced in the Senate, is implied to be out of scope of the discussion, you're dishonest or a moron.

                It appears I have angered you by showing that you are being unreasonable and demonstrati

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  So you first say I had a "problem with context" that clearly didn't exist. Then you make up some bizarre definition of alternatives that necessitates the object being proposed later than the subject.

                  The thing I wonder is whether you even take yourself seriously. I'm guessing not. Either way, I won't even read the rest of your terribly silly comment, and hope that if you do take yourself seriously, you'll retry.

                  • Pudge I'm sorry that you find context to be so vexing that after being thoroughly schooled in your error your only remaining response is to insult me. You are a living proof of the fact that many tigers never can change their stripes; I would wager that if someone who was not on your perma-hate list had shown the same to you, your response would have been civil instead of insulting. Go take your hate somewhere else and remember this as a particularly glaring case where I exposed your lies and failure in l
                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Pudge I'm sorry that you find context to be so vexing

                      Do you really think pretending the existence of a mythical context will make people believe it happened? Hm, you're a leftist, so, maybe, I guess. But around here it usually doesn't work that way. It's really weird that you're quadrupling down on your lie.

                      If there were actual context I should have been aware of, you'd have been able to provide some evidence of it. But you didn't even try, almost certainly because you know there's no evidence, and therefore, no context. So it's fairly obvious you're lyi

                    • Pudge you cannot win here, you lost a long time ago when you failed to accept the obvious context.

                      That said, it is also very telling that you earlier referred to "secret meetings" that Obama had that you said "everyone knew about" yet you could provide no evidence that such "secret" meetings occurred. Your conspiracy theories don't work here and your reading comprehension failure should be a cause for - at least - great embarrassment for you. Really, your reading comprehension failure should cause you
                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      the obvious context

                      ... which you are incapable of providing any evidence of. You can quintuple down now if you like, but it won't change the fact that there is no evidence of this supposed context. Say whatever you want, but without evidence, it means less than nothing.

                      That said, it is also very telling that you earlier referred to "secret meetings" that Obama had that you said "everyone knew about"

                      My goodness you are so completely pathetic [huffingtonpost.com].

                      Again, I said Obama was either there, or was represented directly or indirectly. And yes, literally everyone who follows this knows about these meetings. They were widely reported across all media. I didn't think

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        and everyone knows it.

        Right-wing debate technique.

        Point out that "everyone knows" and "people say" and "some say" and "obviously..."

        Pudge, you are so full of it.

        • Also full of it: the bandwagon fallacy [fallacyfiles.org], and the notion that the technique is exclusive to a political orientation.
          Which is not to say I don't go there myself. It's a pit with which all but the most stringent have acquaintance.
          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            I hope you're not falsely implying I used such a fallacy. On the contrary, I offered the evidence to anyone who would demonstrate a willingness to examine it. That's the opposite of such a fallacy. :-)

            • I had intended to point out that trying to single attack your point as "right-wing debate technique" is, itself, a fallacy.
              Probably didn't come through to clearly.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          Right-wing debate technique. Point out that "everyone knows" and "people say" and "some say" and "obviously..."

          Do you disagree? If so, say so. You didn't. Why? I mean seriously ... not only can you not argue against what I said, you cannot even voice disagreement with it, and yet you're still complaining about it! How pathetic is that?

  • Under a Laissez-Faire system, this would not be a problem.
    • Oh, problems would still exist, but the government would be in a position to be an umpire in the game, instead of suiting out for the team picked to win.

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.

Working...