Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

I guess I've completed Kübler-Ross, or something

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 10 months ago

User Journal 42

I just can't figure out why anyone is upset with President Obama. Elections have consequences. It seemed important to try to oppose the inevitable, leading up to the election.
The rollout of Healthkill.gov has been a dose of serenity for me, though. We are all Ambassador Stevens now. We wanted this. We voted for it. We rejected sanity. Hugs and kisses to fustakrakich, damn_registrars, and Pope Ratzo. You guys won.I just can't figure out why anyone is upset with President Obama. Elections have consequences. It seemed important to try to oppose the inevitable, leading up to the election.
The rollout of Healthkill.gov has been a dose of serenity for me, though. We are all Ambassador Stevens now. We wanted this. We voted for it. We rejected sanity. Hugs and kisses to fustakrakich, damn_registrars, and Pope Ratzo. You guys won.

cancel ×

42 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45418533)

I don't know how I missed this last August [theinciden...nomist.com] , but apparently, under Cover Oregon rules, if you have been given a diagnosis of cancer with less than two years left to live, they can only pay for pallative care, not attempts to cure you.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#45419055)

Why are you surprised?

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45419117)

FEEL the fairness!

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45422417)

I am actually not. The euthanasia law practically guaranteed this.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#45422545)

This isn't really related to the euthanasia law. Maybe in your mind they represent a similar disrespect for human life, but the policies are essentially unrelated.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45428445)

It is philosophically. Due to the Euthanasia law, and the feedback against it, hospice care has taken a big leap forward in Oregon. It's pretty easy to see that hospice is cheaper than the cure in cancer cases; and that 9 grams of poison is even cheaper yet. Thus the link, thus my comment. It all comes down to pennies over people.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45419195)

The government is defining the terms of a government program - medicaid. They did not say that private insurance had to follow suit. They were concerned with spending of public funds. If they said instead that medicaid could spend unlimited money to keep patients alive as long as they want, the conservatives would be bitching about that as well. Instead they actually set a limit, in the interest of being fiscally responsible, and conservatives are still bitching. Hell the patient could still fork out their own money for additional treatment if they want - this sounds like a market based proposal to me.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45419239)

Hell the patient could still fork out their own money for additional treatment if they want - this sounds like a market based proposal to me.

Making you pay twice for a service, first as taxes, then out of the rest of your substance, seems a swindle.
But, hey: fairness. Sometimes you're the bus driver; others, you're going thereunder.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45419561)

Hell the patient could still fork out their own money for additional treatment if they want - this sounds like a market based proposal to me.

Making you pay twice for a service, first as taxes, then out of the rest of your substance, seems a swindle.

No. This is the same as with any for-profit insurance. If you need a treatment that your insurance policy doesn't cover you have the ability to pay for the treatment out of your own pocket.

But, hey: fairness. Sometimes you're the bus driver; others, you're going thereunder.

Not with the insurance system; you are never the bus driver there, you are always at the whim of the insurance industry.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45419607)

No. This is the same as with any for-profit insurance.

Except that it's not at all the same. If I don't like my policy, I can find another one. If I don't like my government, I can try to vote for 1 Representative and 2 Senators who care not fig #1 for me, and who will collude with the rest of the Ruling Class to screw me. So it's not "the same".

you are always at the whim of the insurance industry.

Am I allowed to ask why we've let the market get so baked that we can't Start. Our. Own. Insurance. Company?
A good analysis should be honest about two things:
(a) where we were screwed by the system, and
(b) where our own lack of initiative was a sin of omission.
But we're in the blame-others era, so I guess I should quit touching myself about that self-reliance stuff.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45419663)

you are always at the whim of the insurance industry.

Am I allowed to ask why we've let the market get so baked that we can't Start. Our. Own. Insurance. Company?

You're allowed to ask the question, but you will reject the answer out-of-hand because it doesn't match your worldview. Hence there is no point in you asking it, or me answering it, because you won't want to discuss the answer.

(a) where we were screwed by the system, and

Just look at how many people in Washington are owned by the insurance industry. Actually, that is the easy one. The more difficult task is to find someone in DC who is not owned by the insurance industry.

(b) where our own lack of initiative was a sin of omission.

All the initiative in the world wasn't worth a hill of beans in this system. The game is rigged and for some reason a few people insist on staying in denial about it.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45421113)

If you really think that there's a pseudo-Calvinistic rigging afoot, then why the angst?
This is what I cannot understand about you or fustakrakich: endless poo-flinging, much of it justified; yet, when confronted with people (e.g. Tea Partiers) setting about trying to save the patient, you seem wont to kill the healthy tissue, preserving the tumor.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45424552)

setting about trying to save the patient, you seem wont to kill the healthy tissue, preserving the tumor.

It appears that on the topic of health care in particular we are in disagreement on what is the patient and what is the tumor. You are trying to preserve the health care system that we have had for decades. I want to see a new system that is designed to deliver health care instead of being focused on delivering profit. If you see profit as your patient, you are welcomed to make that argument.

This is why I am puzzled with your supposed outrage at the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010. It improves the sustainability of the current system for generations to come, ensuring that the execs at the HMOs can continue to pull down huge annual bonuses while denying care to their customers. From their perspective it is the greatest present that the government could have ever given them as now all Americans are obligate customers.

There is not a single republican president who has served in the history of our country since WWII who would not have signed that bill. Not. A. Single. One. It is beyond business-friendly, it is business-driving. As best I can tell the GOP is just angry that the bill is associated with President Lawnchair instead of one of their own.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45429207)

You are trying to preserve the health care system that we have had for decades. I want to see a new system that is designed to deliver health care instead of being focused on delivering profit. If you see profit as your patient, you are welcomed to make that argument.

No one is defending the distorted market of yore. The conservative argument is that taking the complexity out of the situation (ask your doctor the cost of any specific lab test and note the blank stare) is what's needed to minimize costs.
The empirical example of the British NHS is that government takeover breeds swaths of bureaucrats and retards care delivery. Or, if you like, my wife can go on at length about how creaky the German system is. Summary: Europe is not the example to emulate.

This is why I am puzzled with your supposed outrage at the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010. It improves the sustainability of the current system for generations to come, ensuring that the execs at the HMOs can continue to pull down huge annual bonuses while denying care to their customers. From their perspective it is the greatest present that the government could have ever given them as now all Americans are obligate customers.

If you read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" you learn that government giving up its role as referee and becoming a player in ANY market just Jacks. Costs. Through. The. Roof.
President Obama's bafflement that his words and signature are not tantamount to magic spells that just cause reality to react to his whim is telling. The gentleman doesn't seem to understand anything but skewed Socialist theories that have 0 empirical success, for all but the smallest use-cases, e.g. Singapore.

There is not a single republican president who has served in the history of our country since WWII who would not have signed that bill. Not. A. Single. One.

Except that none did, so your assertion remains a counter-factual.

It is beyond business-friendly, it is business-driving.

I suppose you're correct, in the sense that arbitrary numbers such as "50" are causing businesses to shed employees. Feel that special friendliness. It's fairness. It's social justice. It's what we voted for. Elections have consequences, there in the breadline.

As best I can tell the GOP is just angry that the bill is associated with President Lawnchair instead of one of their own.

Yeah, that's it. Can we call it envy? Because, in the bizarro, postmodern world of Obama America, being the worst President ever counts as Winning!

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45429749)

You are trying to preserve the health care system that we have had for decades. I want to see a new system that is designed to deliver health care instead of being focused on delivering profit. If you see profit as your patient, you are welcomed to make that argument.

No one is defending the distorted market of yore.

Really? Then why is everyone in such a hurry to repeal the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 and replace it with nothing at all? This would, of course, bring us right back to where we were (which is less than marginally different from where this lousy bill will take us).

ask your doctor the cost of any specific lab test and note the blank stare

That really isn't a useful metric, for several reasons

  • Your doctor doesn't perform the lab test, and is not the manager of the person who does. You pay your doctor to be knowledgeable on medicine, not on payroll, HR, and office bookkeeping.
  • The doctor most likely to order a lab test for you is an internist, who might order any (or any combination) of several dozen different tests. Knowing how the prices fluctuate on those tests is not an easy task as the cost of a variety of different items influences them.
  • This doesn't actually reduce the complexity of medicine when you ask the provider of healthcare to become an accountant, HR person, office manager, lab director, oh, and your practitioner as well

So in other words, while the idea might sound good on a napkin - just like the whole "sell insurance across state lines" bit that quickly falls apart under scrutiny as well - it doesn't actually help the situation. If you feel that lab tests are wasteful you have the right to say no when your doctor suggests one. You could also go into the device industry and work on new fluid-handling mechanisms to do better, faster detection with less material, which would benefit a large number of people up and down the chain. Or, you can pretend that making doctors swallow more numbers that don't actually help heal patients will somehow make them better practitioners.

The empirical example of the British NHS is that government takeover breeds swaths of bureaucrats and retards care delivery.

Really? They have comparable life expectancy, spend less per person, and have generally higher rates of patient satisfaction than here in the states.

Summary: Europe is not the example to emulate.

The rest of the industrialized world recognizes that the American system is a failure in all important health metrics. The system needs dramatic changes to properly suit the population and you are suggesting window dressings that would make some spin doctors feel better but would at best have no change on the cost of health care and could very well end up driving the costs of care up.

President Obama's bafflement that his words and signature are not tantamount to magic spells that just cause reality to react to his whim is telling.

Smitty you are degrading yourself with that nonsensical statement. You know that President Lawnchair knows more than that. Just because you despise him for not being of your party doesn't mean you should make yourself look silly by hurling silly insults like that which you yourself don't actually believe in.

The gentleman doesn't seem to understand anything but skewed Socialist theories that have 0 empirical success, for all but the smallest use-cases, e.g. Singapore.

Really? I challenge you to show me one single socialist theory that he has applied as president - or one that he proposed or voted for as Senator. There is not one. Not. One. Single. Piece. Of. Socialist. Legislation.

Again, you are just making yourself look silly when you spew out conservative talking points like that. You might as well claim he's from Mars at that point.

There is not a single republican president who has served in the history of our country since WWII who would not have signed that bill. Not. A. Single. One.

Except that none did, so your assertion remains a counter-factual.

Because it wasn't proposed under any of them. None of the previous conservative presidents realized that they could reinforce the existing shitty system and simultaneously take credit for "reforming" it.

It is beyond business-friendly, it is business-driving.

I suppose you're correct, in the sense that arbitrary numbers such as "50" are causing businesses to shed employees.

First, i was referring to how it drives business to insurance companies by making us all mandatory consumers of the industry. Second, while the conservative media has made a lot of hay out of companies allegedly dropping employees to get under a set threshold, President Lawnchair's economy has still added private sector jobs. If small businesses where truly hemorrhaging jobs at the rate that the media wants us to believe then the jobs numbers would have been going in the opposite direction again.

the worst President ever

You've been making that claim since February of 2009. You have about as much factual support for it now as you did then. Tell me, how many soldiers did this president send off to die? How many jobs did he lose? In which direction did he move the federal deficit?

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45430997)

LOL! The Tea party is the phony Filipino faith healer. Pure con job that you have fallen for. But thanks for the props.

Re: previous post
Sometimes you're the bus driver; others, you're going thereunder.

The insurance industry is the bus driver/owner, and the government is the bus. The voters (including, or maybe especially you) are the underpaid mechanic that doesn't know which end of the screwdriver to hit who fall for the con. Thus you want to wreck the bus and give the driver a promotion instead of firing him..

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45431369)

You still haven't explained to me how the U.S. Constitution, as amended, is a con job.
Mostly, I surmise, because it's not.

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45434907)

The 13th Amendment is *THA EVIL*! And it just happens to a be a placebo also, since all you have to do is convict a person of a trivial offense to enslave them. We have more slaves now than we ever did. And that demographic certainly does not match genpop, not even close.

The The Tea Party hates the Constitution [taroscopes.com]

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45440393)

The Tea Party does not H8 the Constitution [youtube.com] .

Re:And the latest- Death Panels in Oregon (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#45423219)

"Not with the insurance system; you are never the bus driver there, you are always at the whim of the insurance industry."

You are right. Now ask the critical question, why?

Why do we have a system in this country where people cannot pay for their own health care and are at the mercy of these insurance companies?

Research back to the early 40s and you will find that, under wage controls, employers were forced to find creative ways to compete for labour. Someone came up with the idea of 'free' health insurance as an untaxed benefit, and the government went along with it. THAT is where the train went off the rails, and what we have now is the result - not of a free market of any kind, but of well-intentioned but poorly considered meddling.

Hey, now (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45429167)

Part of keeping the rubes down is making them live in the present tense.
You're not allowed to go muddying the Brawndo with that there "history" stuff.

I voted for Obama? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45418709)

And you didn't???

Fascinating. I did not know that.

Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45419245)

I didn't win shit. The health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 is marching on in spite of my disdain for it. Government is continuing to march further to the right as the "left" (whatever the fuck that means) caves in to demands at nearly every junction.

Don't even think of trying to tell me that the democrats somehow "won" when the right shut down the federal government. They are still falling in the polls at only a nominally slower rate than the rest of the conservatives. They haven't had the initiative to propose a single bill in many years that even vaguely resembles anything that wouldn't have been written by the republicans in any other term.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45419535)

Government is continuing to march further to the right as the "left" (whatever the fuck that means) caves in to demands at nearly every junction.

Something I wrote a few years ago [blogspot.com] :

Seen from the standpoint where the US is a tub, power is water, and Washington, DC is the drain, Ron Paul is quite valuable as a rubber ducky for tracking the drainage.

Don't even think of trying to tell me that the democrats somehow "won" when the right shut down the federal government.

Well, that's what the codpiece media said, for all that statement isn't precisely true in sum or in parts.

They haven't had the initiative to propose a single bill in many years that even vaguely resembles anything that wouldn't have been written by the republicans in any other term.

I'm not really processing what you mean here. Mom has been handing out free stuff for decades, Dad hasn't been bringing in the taxes, and the family finances are a total disaster. You can't cut the freebies, and you're pretty much maxed on taxes (sure, you can raise them, and watch tax dodging go Greek).
Congressional approval is in single digits, and BHO's approval is at a record low, in freefall.
I, for one, don't believe a single godforsaken thing my government says on much of anything, from jobs, to the economy, to climate, to foreign policy.
Approaches I can support for addressing our disaster involve
(a) removing power from DC, and
(b) letting people succeed or fail in liberty, not some bureaucratically twisted little "fairness" hell.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45449093)

Seen from the standpoint where the US is a tub, power is water, and Washington, DC is the drain, Ron Paul is quite valuable as a rubber ducky for tracking the drainage.

Do you know how plumbing works? When water passes through a drain, it ... drains. The drain does not retain water. In this analogy Washington is passing power away off into a region that they do not influence. This is counter to your previous assertions that Washington is accumulating power.

Furthermore, in this analogy Ron Paul is certainly not a rubber ducky. He is more an automatic valve downstream of the drain, directing power to the place where he wants it.

Don't even think of trying to tell me that the democrats somehow "won" when the right shut down the federal government.

Well, that's what the codpiece media said, for all that statement isn't precisely true in sum or in parts.

So is your main argument then that the "evil left" shut down the federal government, or that it wasn't actually shut down at all?

You can't cut the freebies

If you would step away from the far-right rhetoric and look at reality for a moment you would realize that vanishingly few people are actually looking exclusively for "freebies". I have been arguing for single payer for decades, but at no point did I make the argument that I wanted the government to "give" me health insurance. I am fully aware that it needs to be paid for, just as I am also aware that the government is almost certainly capable of delivering a more customer-centric health insurance plan than any of the for-profit insurance companies (and indeed, they have already shown many times over that they can).

and you're pretty much maxed on taxes (sure, you can raise them, and watch tax dodging go Greek).

Short of Somalia there are hardly any countries in the world with lower effective tax rates on the highest income brackets or more regressive overall structure. Furthermore tax evasion is already practically a national pastime - particularly for the top echelons - and just simply improving tax enforcement would go a long ways towards improving the books.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45450699)

Do you know how plumbing works?

Do you know how analogies work? If you point is to parody a bloody-minded, humorless, academic twit for comic effect, I gotta tell ya: Good one!

it wasn't actually shut down

Clearly, to the extent that Ron Paul is literally a rubber ducky, the government was shut down, so that I, the evil Tea Party mastermind over there on the Ted-Cruz-Is-My-Meat-Puppet Remote Control Panel, could take a couple of weeks off to fanny about*.

vanishingly few people are actually looking exclusively for "freebies"

Do you get out of that ivory tower much [cbsnews.com] ? I guess it's no big deal, as long as there is a conservative to blame for all of the damage done to the Precious Bodily Fluids of the people.

I am also aware that the government is almost certainly capable of delivering a more customer-centric health insurance plan than any of the for-profit insurance companies

I suppose you'd offer the Veterans Administration up as evidence. This is fine, as long as you don't ask any actually veterans about the results. My father's generally bitter about it; I myself retired from the Reserves, so I don't receive any benefits for ~15 years, assuming Congress hasn't whittled them down to nil, which is about my expectation.

Short of Somalia there are hardly any countries in the world with lower effective tax rates on the highest income brackets or more regressive overall structure. Furthermore tax evasion is already practically a national pastime - particularly for the top echelons - and just simply improving tax enforcement would go a long ways towards improving the books.

I'm sincerely curious as to whom you think knowledgable on the topic? Paul Krugman? Robert Reich? Ezra Klein? Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner? I contend that our tax system is about as jacked up as our budgeting, or Obama's approach to executing his signature law: brutally tragic jokes, all.


*This is an example of exaggeration, as Ted Cruz is actually controlled via a magic ring from Galt's Gulch.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45451879)

vanishingly few people are actually looking exclusively for "freebies"

Do you get out of that ivory tower much?

I don't expect you will believe this, but I do read the news regularly. I have read the articles about that event. Apparently you haven't read them very closely, or you would realize that they really don't refute my argument. It was a small number of people that essentially liquidated each grocery section when they found out what was going on. There were plenty of people who were also on EBT or SNAP who did not choose to take advantage of the situation.

I am also aware that the government is almost certainly capable of delivering a more customer-centric health insurance plan than any of the for-profit insurance companies

I suppose you'd offer the Veterans Administration up as evidence. This is fine, as long as you don't ask any actually veterans about the results.

Care to make any more baseless and sweeping generalizations? I know both veterans who use the VA (amongst which I know both those who love and those who despise it) as well as people who work there. At worst, the rate at which veterans hate the VA is no higher than the rate at which customers of for-profit insurance companies hate their insurance plans. Being as VA beneficiaries have the right to go purchase insurance on the free market and tell the VA to fuck off, your argument doesn't get you anywhere if you are trying to claim that the market is somehow better than the VA.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45451929)

It was a small number of people that essentially liquidated each grocery section when they found out what was going on.

It was human beings carrying out precisely what sinful flesh will do, especially when years of entitlements have blown up whatever moral restraint should've given them a twinge of conscience. The difference between these people and Congress is that Congress does it via legislation, an admittedly genteel approach.

your argument doesn't get you anywhere if you are trying to claim that the market is somehow better than the VA

I'm always going to claim that the free market solution is superior, chiefly because more or less every argument you care to investigate honestly will show such.
The VA itself has significant peculiarities to it, though; you couldn't offer health insurance to people who're going into war zones at any affordable rate, war being about blowing up markets as much as letting them function.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45452089)

It was a small number of people that essentially liquidated each grocery section when they found out what was going on.

It was human beings carrying out precisely what sinful flesh will do, especially when years of entitlements have blown up whatever moral restraint should've given them a twinge of conscience.

You are not actually delusional to claim that the conservatives are without immoral actions are you? Remember who sells thousand dollars hammers and three hundred dollar toilet seats to the US government? Remember who profited so handily from the war in Iraq and from the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? You cannot tell me those people were acting with "moral restraint".

your argument doesn't get you anywhere if you are trying to claim that the market is somehow better than the VA

I'm always going to claim that the free market solution is superior, chiefly because more or less every argument you care to investigate honestly will show such.

Except for the fact that when you compare the American market system to that of any other country in the industrialized world, you find that we have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, higher rate of investment per capita, and lower patient returns; then sure you can say that this system is superior. I guess all those numbers must just be lying, right? Or is it that profit is the only number that matters - after all we knock that sonofabitch out of the ballpark!

The VA itself has significant peculiarities to it, though; you couldn't offer health insurance to people who're going into war zones at any affordable rate, war being about blowing up markets as much as letting them function.

So then maybe we just need to increase what we pay our soldiers so that they can purchase insurance on their own when we send them to war? Of course that notion ignores the fact that they can buy insurance from a company on the market after they get back from war, if they so choose. There is nothing that forces them to stay with the VA after they rejoin civilian life.

That said if you believe that the insurance is too expensive for military personnel because they are going to war, then we should be able to save nuclear-powered-aircraft-carriers full of money by just not going to war. I don't see that as being a popular option with any part of the conservative movement.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45453213)

You are not actually delusional to claim that the conservatives are without immoral actions are you?

Only if, conservatives are not "human beings", as I stated.
As for the rest of your comment, President Obama's "If you like your plan, you can keep it" lie is of such a magnitude that I feel comfortable ignoring all of the secondary and tertiary nonsense used to sell his Big Lie. We're just going to have to start at square zero and re-assess everything, given the taint.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45466737)

You are not actually delusional to claim that the conservatives are without immoral actions are you?

Only if, conservatives are not "human beings", as I stated.

Does that mean then that your new hypothesis is that conservatives are both 100% moral and human, while you have concluded that everyone else is neither? I guess that would explain a lot of what you have been writing.

As for the rest of your comment, President Obama's "If you like your plan, you can keep it" lie is of such a magnitude that I feel comfortable ignoring all of the secondary and tertiary nonsense used to sell his Big Lie.

Does that mean that this is your new favorite conspiracy theory? Are you going to focus on this instead of your Libyan boogeyman?

We're just going to have to start at square zero and re-assess everything, given the taint.

I'm not aware of anyone who has died from his line. Previous administrations gave us lies that led directly to the death of thousands and no such great witch hunt was initiated by anyone. I love the nonpartisanship that you are exhibiting here...

Hell under previous administrations a line like this would have been seen as perfectly OK since it just protects the interests and profits of top campaign donors. But since the person behind the line has a (D) after his name instead of a trusty (R) then the line must have had malicious intent and hence the person who uttered it needs to be tarred and feathered, right? Maybe drawn and quartered afterwards for good measure? Clearly it is significant enough that we can suspend the rights to fair trial and against cruel and unusual punishment!

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45469435)

Does that mean then that your new hypothesis is that conservatives are both 100% moral and human, while you have concluded that everyone else is neither?

Didn't you tell me you were raised Methodist? Do you remember a thing of Christianity? Do you recall that your formulation flies in the face of First John in particular, and the New Testament in general?

Does that mean that this is your new favorite conspiracy theory?

What. Conspiracy. Theory? Isn't it fairly well documented that the Affordable Care Act has been a river of lies, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation, to policy cancellations, to blame distribution?

Previous administrations gave us lies that led directly to the death of thousands and no such great witch hunt was initiated by anyone.

So is your argument that, because Congress authorized asinine policies that resulted in deaths under W., and you deem the outcry insufficient, we should just say shag-all and give Obama (whose policy actually sent me to Afghanistan, where I could've easily joined the death toll) a big fat pass? Do you really think this kind of blame-shifting matters? Do you realize that this looks as childish and manhood-free as his pathetic press conference on the 14th?

But since the person behind the line has a (D) after his name instead of a trusty (R) then the line must have had malicious intent and hence the person who uttered it needs to be tarred and feathered, right?

Do you realize that your attempts to make the rejection of our Progressive collapse a partisan issue suck about as much as attempts to make it a racial issue?

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45474955)

Does that mean then that your new hypothesis is that conservatives are both 100% moral and human, while you have concluded that everyone else is neither?

Didn't you tell me you were raised Methodist? Do you remember a thing of Christianity? Do you recall that your formulation flies in the face of First John in particular, and the New Testament in general?

You are treating people who hold alternate ideas of what they want from government as if they are sub-human and dedicated to lying. Don't go throwing mythology into the mix to try to support your partisanship.

What. Conspiracy. Theory? Isn't it fairly well documented that the Affordable Care Act has been a river of lies, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation, to policy cancellations, to blame distribution?

The problem here is in the same word where your last conspiracy theory had such major problems. Need a hint? The word is "lie" (or "lies"). When you are accusing someone of lying you are stating that they knew what they were saying to be untrue and said it anyways. That is a very large mountain that you need to climb and you are staring at your feet complaining that there isn't a tow rope.

It's OK to hate the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010, I'm no fan of it either (if you would read more than 15% of what I write you would have known that a long time ago). You can even hate the president if you want, you have the constitutional right to do that as long as you don't conduct acts of physical violence as a result of it. What you don't have the right to do is to change reality to your will. If you believe someone lied, you need to give a reason to believe them to have knowingly given untruthful statements. You repeatedly declined the opportunity to do that for your previous conspiracy theory and I expect you will do the same here.

Do you realize that your attempts to make the rejection of our Progressive collapse a partisan issue suck about as much as attempts to make it a racial issue?

And there you go, yet again, trying to get me to call you a racist. Why do you desire that so badly?

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45478623)

When you are accusing someone of lying you are stating that they knew what they were saying to be untrue and said it anyways.

You can ignore the evidence of systemic lying and claim that they're honest, as far as you can tell.
One is moved to a position of viewing you as either (a) a fool or (b) a collaborator.
I believe nothing whatsoever that this administration states. They are beyond the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45481197)

When you are accusing someone of lying you are stating that they knew what they were saying to be untrue and said it anyways.

You can ignore the evidence of systemic lying

I am asking you again, what "evidence" do you have of this "systemic" lying? You keep saying that you know with certainty that they are lying (which indicates you believe them to know themselves to be saying untrue things), but you repeatedly refuse to induce how you know this.

One is moved to a position of viewing you as either (a) a fool or (b) a collaborator.

That is only what someone driven by partisanship would say. I am skeptical of both you and the lawnchair administration. However unlike you I need more than a single consonant from very early in the Latin alphabet to convince myself that someone is lying.

I believe nothing whatsoever that this administration states. They are beyond the benefit of the doubt.

And yet when the president has an (R) after his name you believe everything he says and extends every benefit of doubt to him. You paint all politicians from one party as 100% evil, and all politicians from the other as 100% benevolent.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45487185)

I am asking you again, what "evidence" do you have of this "systemic" lying?

Have you paid a shred of attention to the news [libertynews.com] ? Or is your argument that unless the government official vibrated my cochlea via direct sound waves from their own vocal chords, it's not "lying" lying? At least one former federal prosecutor has dropped the f-bomb [nationalreview.com] on the topic.
But I guess you'll just come off with a partisan "Well, that's a conservative President for you" or some such other dodge.

when the president has an (R) after his name you believe everything he says and extends every benefit of doubt to him

Get stuffed. I voted for Perot, because that's what I think of Statists like Bush41. You can H8 on W all day, but I have two words for you: "Gore" and "Kerry". Or, "ManBearPig" and "Lurch".
Maybe we can agree to work toward the peaceful overthrow of the entire Progressive apparatus, and try some actual capitalism for a change, and not this oligarchy with a layer of unsustainable entitlements marking our modern debt plantation.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45487989)

Have you paid a shred of attention to the news?

That 34 second sound clip doesn't tell anything of value. She was between topics and the conclusion that your right wing blog came to is not clearly supported by what she said. You would need the full interview to actually know what she was talking about but clearly your source doesn't want that to be viewed.

Or is your argument that unless the government official vibrated my cochlea via direct sound waves from their own vocal chords, it's not "lying" lying?

No, the point I have shown several times over now is that you apply a vastly different definition of lying for those who you agree with philosophically than those who you do not. You are willing to assert that someone with a (D) is lying because you said so, while only a direct communique from God himself would convince you that someone with an (R) was lying. You need to stick to just one meaning of lying, and apply it to everyone, if you want to look like your not just an ultrapartisan hack.

At least one former federal prosecutor has dropped the f-bomb on the topic.

The proper summary of that is "one conservative who used to be a prosecutor under a republican president has crapped his pants in anger over this law". I like how he is pretending that we would dare accuse a CEO of lying on the basis of just one statement like this. Hell why not call for a lynch mob over the "58 states" bit while you're at it?

"Gore" and "Kerry". Or, "ManBearPig" and "Lurch".

Those aren't even amusing insults. Those are a silly cartoon reference and an old black-and-white TV reference. You could have at least bothered to look at what either of them did as actual politicians, but that might require you to ... oh, I don't know ... possibly consider looking at them as if they were fully human.

Maybe we can agree to work toward the peaceful overthrow of the entire Progressive apparatus

Why would I believe you care about making it peaceful? To say nothing of the fact that there really hasn't been any progress is any non-conservative direction from the federal government in decades...

and try some actual capitalism for a change

What kinds of changes do you want to see implemented to see "some actual capitalism"? Every president in decades has rolled back regulations and lowered taxes at the top. What else do you want?

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45489195)

What kinds of changes do you want to see implemented to see "some actual capitalism"? Every president in decades has rolled back regulations and lowered taxes at the top. What else do you want?

I don't know. I guess I'm looking for some sane interlocutors on /. In precisely what way do you feel the Code of Federal Regulations [wikipedia.org] has been rolled back? Have you seen a photo of the positively tumorous Affordable Care Act legislation/regulations? Taller than me, printed out. And that's even before President L'etat c'est moi starts randomly lubricating it with illegal audibles at the line of scrimmage.
In his defense, it's not improbable that an electorate benighted enough to re-elect him would fail to notice that a one-year stay of execution, in the long run, means precisely eff-all.
May the Lord grant you help in coming to grips with our Orwellian rendezvous.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 months ago | (#45451105)

You're smitty on The Other McCain? Cool.

What do you think of the Team Kimberlin fiasco?

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45451245)

Yeah, I had an online life prior to The Other McCain.
I don't think much of Kimberlin. He seems exactly the kind of sick thug that supports certain more refined thugs, so keeping him out of play is probably a Good Thing. But, like Snowden, I am ignorant of the play-by-play details.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 months ago | (#45452903)

Following it there and elsewhere has been my guilty pleasure for a couple of months now. Then I feel bad because this guy is fucking with real people's lives.

Re:Win? What kind of drugs are you on? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45453223)

I mostly have fun on Twitter these days; much shorter sarcastic bursts.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>