Consider the fact that Obamacare is now simply untethered from law or policy. This week the administration announced that you can get a hardship waiver from Obamacare if your hardship is . . .wait for it . . . Obamacare. This is like getting out of doing push-ups during basic training if you can prove that doing push-ups would be difficult for you, defeating the point of doing push-ups in the first place. The White House is quite simply making it all up as they go along. You can't really point to a thing that is Obamacare because doing so would be like pointing at the blob in a lava lamp and saying "that looks like Michael Caine eating a badger." Maybe it looks like that right now. Give it a second. When you criticize Obamacare the response from its defenders gets meta really quickly.
I'm sure that damn_registrars understands all of this substitution of mood for law is a necessary step so that one day soon BHO can call a press conference and announce: "I have a Single Prayer dream" in his best MLK voice.
We'll get there, d_r. Let us know if you need a diaper re-supply.
I suppose I'll be the first too ask (Score:1)
Who here is defending "Obamacare"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Conservative/liberal" - Makes no difference to me, but it is proof that Señor Presidente is following orders (promise them anything, give them Chanel), not so unwillingly, as the Beverly Hills lifestyle appeals... The bill would have passed anyway. You can pretend all you want that the republican "opposition" was more than show, but they, along with the democrats, are the ones cashing the checks, not you. Propaganda and lies win elections. That is not their fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The brain responds to challenges to closely-held beliefs the same way it does to mortal fear of death. You're not going to make any progress using logic here.
Smitty believes that anyone who isn't a conservative is a Democrat and all Democrats support Obamacare. He believes Obama is a "leftist" and anyone who doesn't believe the way he does is a "leftist" and that the two poles of the political divide are "Left" and "Right". He hasn't figured out yet that the divide is really "Top" and "Bottom".
Even if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I always though it was kinda "North" and "South" :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've wildly mis-stated my beliefs
I'd love to know which part of what he said was in any way approaching being "wildly mis-stated". You have been repeatedly trying to pound me - a square peg if ever there was one - into the round hole that you see as "progressives", where you have already fit President Lawnchair. You are also continuously trying to trick me in to approving of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, just as you are continuously trying to get me to call you racist. You also repeatedly go back to labeling everyt
Re: (Score:2)
As with the deaths of the Benghazi Four, the ACA is a necessary deceit in the service of "Higher Truth", AmIRight?
The only bad guys here are those peevish conservatives who still, archaicly refuse to accept the ultimate truth that they are the subjects of Holy Progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just here telling the truth
I don't have the patience to dig back far enough in your comment history to find the last time you said something truthful in response to something I posted here on slashdot. I know I would have to go back quite a ways. I can't even give you a pass on your outright lies about socialism as of late as they are so far removed from anything resembling reality that I can't possibly imagine a scenario where any thinking person could say them and not recognize them as being complete bullshit. If I suddenly sta
Re: (Score:2)
I am comfortable that you are intellectually incapable of permitting yourself to be pinned down on any definition that is less than positive, irrespective of facts or history.
You own the negative examples of Socialism to the extent that I own Westboro Baptist Church.
Can we agree there?
Re: (Score:2)
I am comfortable that you are intellectually incapable of permitting yourself to be pinned down on any definition that is less than positive, irrespective of facts or history.
You haven't offered an example of socialism that is even remotely close to factual, let alone positive. So far your definitions all come down to "socialism == evil", which is not even a starting point for a discussion.
You own the negative examples of Socialism to the extent that I own Westboro Baptist Church.
The negative examples of "socialism" that you are trying to reach for are also negative examples of Christianity; hence you need to own them as well. If you will admit that Hitler's march across Europe and his direction of the extermination of millions of non-combatants that he called "ene
Re: (Score:2)
And you can hate the meaning of life as much as I hate anyone trying to enshrine the state as God in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
And herein lies the rub: I'm no more responsible for, say the Roman Church than you are for the U.S.S.R., for all the Commies were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
You claim to be a Christian, and the Roman (Catholic?) Church claims to be the center of Christianity. You have no moral angle upon which to reject what they do in the name of Christ.
However, socialism has no central leader or idol. Socialism is not done in the name of someone, and cannot lead an empire such as the USSR - with all of its divergent geographies, cultures, ideals, and languages - any more so than could conservatism. The USSR fell to exactly the same fault under their non-Communist / non-
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was an atheist
Really? Why would an atheist seek to kill millions of people of very specific religious beliefs? Why would an atheist seek out religious relics?
No wonder you posted that AC, as you can't support it and plenty of informative sources plainly refute it.
Re: (Score:1)
Mussolini at least made the trains run on time, whereas Obama even can't get a fucking website to work.
Re: (Score:1)
Are the planes running on time?
Hell, if that were true, his approval ratings would be much higher.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...he is completely incompetent.
You have no idea what you're talking about. He is moving tons of money and his associates are very happy with his performance so far. The business pages are filled with stories of his "success". The success of Wall Street is his legacy. And it will be Hillary's also, even if she doesn't run. You all ought to get out of your ideological ruts and discover where the real action is, on the spreadsheets.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you can see the difference between being a Leftist and being a Fascist. It takes a bit of discernment.
Smitty is still in the "your side or my side" division of the world. That does not generally lead to clarity. But he's under a lot of stress, and I believe he's still worth saving.
Re: (Score:1)
No, there is no difference. Fascism and Socialism are two sides of the same Totalitarian Coin.
The communists in Germany had a saying -- "First brown, then red" -- as they saw Hitler's National Socialist party as a step to the Bolshevik style Communism that Stalin had.
And in case you've forgotten -- Stalin and Hitler were allies until Hitler invaded Russia.
Furthermore, the NY Times wrote numerous editorials saying, gee,
Re: (Score:1)
Start with the French Revolution, it's really what started all this Secular Humanistic "Progressive" bullshit that has a higher body count...
Of course we'll have to include your godless money changing capitalists in there...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes... They just woke up and started killing people... they did it all by themselves, with their own two hands, without a single penny... all on pure faith in some ideology.. Well yeah, power and money... Okay, I'll give the Sicilians props for being less brutal.. But money makes the world go 'round no matter who you're dealing with. They can't get any followers and build an army without capital.
Don't be such a goof.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any citation for that statement beyond kookie far right websites?
And the US was allies with Stalin until the end of the war.
You're the guy who's getting your history from freerepublic.org. You
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, for one, my late Grandfather who was born there and escaped. Otherwise, there are a number of textbooks you can find. I'm not doing the research for you.
You're the guy who's getting your history from freerepublic.org.
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, "everybody knows", huh?
You're full of shit. I understand that may be hereditary.
Re: (Score:1)
No wonder you're a Democrat -- you're intellectually lazy. It's easier to regurgitate shit from MSNBC and tell people "Well, I'm a Democrat because I care about people" than it is to look deep and get engaged.
Low information voters like you will be the death of this once great Country. And when it falls, I will take no solace in the fact that you ultimately got what you deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically asked you if anyone on slashdot is defending the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. In other words, you did not answer his question at all. Instead you ignored the question entirely and talked about me.
Thank you.
Though for that matter, your bit about
the Affordable Care Act a conservative trick
Is actually supported - not refuted - by the link you gave to the Heritage Foundation article. Lately
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically asked you if anyone on slashdot is defending the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. In other words, you did not answer his question at all. Instead you ignored the question entirely and talked about me.
And of course no one is, because that piece of legislation does not exist outside of the swamp that is your mind.
Re: (Score:1)
More correctly, it's an Insurance Industry Aid Bill. It was written for their exclusive benefit. It was their representatives who were invited to speak and "donate"to the president and congress. It is capitalism at work, business using the state to collect money for them. This is the evil of DC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Untrue. There is no better example of unfettered capitalism than in contraband. The only competition is amongst the cartels. It is business cartels than finance and own your political parties and set policy. The smaller fish work for them. Nothing says "survival of the fittest" more than capitalism. And there is no changing it until humans can devalue wealth/power.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no changing it until humans can devalue wealth/power
I partially agree here. Human nature is constant, across time, cultures, and occasional outbursts of altruism/evil.
This gets me back to my central point that the best you can do is introduce feedback to minimize the problem.
Alas, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives damaged the Constitutional feedback loops.
The argument moves to how to restore them.
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically asked you if anyone on slashdot is defending the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. In other words, you did not answer his question at all. Instead you ignored the question entirely and talked about me.
And of course no one is, because that piece of legislation does not exist outside of the swamp that is your mind.
You can make up your own fantasy about what that bill does if you so wish. The point here though is that you were directly asked who on slashdot is actually supporting it, and you did not answer the question. You responded to the comment that asked you that question, but in that comment you talked about me instead of answering the question.
Re: (Score:2)
The point here though is that you were directly asked who on slashdot is actually supporting it, and you did not answer the question.
I'm confident that if it wasn't a full-on train wreck, you'd be all sweetness, light, and victory laps. That it's a train wreck, and the Commies are going to stand and deliver for the first time as a result sure has your diaper overflowing. I am approximately 17% moved toward sympathy for your position.
Re: (Score:2)
The point here though is that you were directly asked who on slashdot is actually supporting it, and you did not answer the question.
I'm confident that if it wasn't a full-on train wreck, you'd be all sweetness, light, and victory laps.
First of all, you still haven't answered the question.
That said, if you look back you'll see that I opposed it well before it was ever voted on in congress. As soon as I heard they abandoned the hope of single payer, and were instead selling out to the conservatives, I voiced my opposition to it. Just because you have convinced yourself that every non-conservative person is 100% interchangeable in thought and function with every other one does not make it so.
That it's a train wreck, and the Commies are going to stand and deliver for the first time as a result sure has your diaper overflowing.
Really? Commies? The US Communist Party
Re: (Score:2)
Do you expect that I can survey all of
Now that we've "passed the legislation, and found out what's in it" (Oh, Nancy, you absolute piece of work) the idea stands revealed as a totally dirty diaper.
Given that you can't even be honest about the little things, such as my advocating a proper impeachment trial for Obama over Benghazi, why would anybody expect you to be honest about your support
Re: (Score:2)
The question of who on /. is defending the ACA? How would I know, precisely?
You seem to be so certain that people here are defending it....
Do you expect that I can survey all of /. and come up with some report for you?
No, but if it is as popular here as you are asserting, then it should be trivial for you to name at least one slashdot user who supports it. Nobody is asking for a comprehensive list or statistics or anything like that (as much as you love witch hunts). Just name one slashdot user who supports it. you haven't even been able to do that so far. In fact, you have repeatedly dodged the opportunity to even do that.
You would look a lot less
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you have not been advocating a proper impeachment. You have shown that your disdain for President Lawnchair is far too deep to accept such a thing. For you, an impeachment would only be proper if it lead to him being permanently run out of Washington DC. Anything less and you would call for another one, until you get the result you want. At that point the impeachment is in no way proper.
So you both assert that I am less than forthright in a quest for a proper impeachment, which, who knows, could exhonerate Obama? What if it showed "not one smidgen" of cowardice, inattention to duty, or disregard for subordinates? I guess I'm missing the point here: why aren't we getting the story out there, and celebrating this paragon of leadership righteousness?
Re: (Score:2)
So you both assert that I am less than forthright in a quest for a proper impeachment, which, who knows, could exhonerate Obama?
We both know that you would not accept that. You want him out at any cost, without concern for the law or what it could do to your own cause in the end if you removed him by force rather than using the law. You have been abundantly clear on that.
Hell the fact that you keep throwing around impeachment with the adjective "proper" attached to it only supports the notion that you have no respect for the law. You would discard any impeachment that did not immediately throw him out on the streets (preferabl
Re: (Score:2)
You want him out at any cost, without concern for the law or what it could do to your own cause in the end if you removed him by force rather than using the law. You have been abundantly clear on that.
No, and I gave you a fully rational explanation that, for all I harbor precisely 0 respect for BHO, the overarching concern is to restore the rule of law, not further debase it by answering Obama evil with Obama evil. Perhaps you've forgotten that, or aren't interested in rational discourse.
Cowardice is a feeling. You cannot prove what someone feels.
You can characterize behavior as cowardly, e.g. letting me under fire die. See "Saving Private Ryan".
It has been investigated and reported on more than once.
By what unpartisan source, pray?
Re: (Score:2)
You want him out at any cost, without concern for the law or what it could do to your own cause in the end if you removed him by force rather than using the law. You have been abundantly clear on that.
No
You have embraced a grocery list of over a dozen different conspiracies - many of which have already been thoroughly debunked as not being anywhere near as significant as you wish them to be - of reasons why you feel that Obama should be thrown out.
I gave you a fully rational explanation that, for all I harbor precisely 0 respect for BHO, the overarching concern is to restore the rule of law
There has been little, if any, rational explanation in your aims. You want to throw out the president with the cursed fourth letter after his name, you have made that abundantly clear. You just don't have a reasonable way to do that in accordance with the law