Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Unsurprising surprise of the century

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 2 months ago

User Journal 46

PELOSI: Well of course I wanted single-payer, and I wanted a public option.
Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there.
Down with you, botox-face.PELOSI: Well of course I wanted single-payer, and I wanted a public option.
Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there.
Down with you, botox-face.

cancel ×

46 comments

Did she ever... (1)

mwlewis (794711) | about 2 months ago | (#47106667)

...actually read the bill? Maybe it's all in there.

You can hope in one hand ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 months ago | (#47106751)

... and crap in the other. Which one fills up first?

There is no legitimate chance for single payer in this country anytime soon. You can demonize as many people over its (inexistent) possibility as you want, if it makes you feel better somehow.

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47110717)

We are 11 separate economies. Why should we need a national single payer when 99% of the people are never going to travel far enough to get out of their economic zone?

Just turn the whole thing over to the FED.

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47113135)

> Just turn the whole thing over to the FED

Fuck you very much.

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47113203)

We were also told that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan [politifact.com] " which is proving a steamer for the ages in the barrel of turds that is this administration. So don't count the forces of idiocy & evil out: they're intent on bringing the VA to you.

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 months ago | (#47116165)

We were also told that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" which is proving a steamer for the ages

Now, if one were to actually pay attention to what has caused people to lose their plans, you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government. The health insurance industry that reaped a huge benefit on their government investment in the form of this awful bill retained all the power they had before while also being given a whole class of people as obligatory new customers.

Interestingly enough, one thing that this bill cannot do is force insurance companies to keep offering any specific plans that they previously offered - or keep offering plans at X dollar amounts. This gave the insurance companies carte blanche to change rates as much as they wanted. One would think that then another company would swoop in to grab up some of those lower-income customers, but the bill also does nothing to prevent cartel behavior from the companies, which leaves the customers - who are now forced to buy regardless of their wishes - stuck paying more than they did previously.

So don't count the forces of idiocy & evil out

And just how would the force of idiocy be able to pull off some sort of grand change? That is a whopper of a conspiracy there, even for someone like you who likes to reveal a new conspiracy at least once a month.

they're intent on bringing the VA to you.

... and then back to the old "what they do is the opposite of what they want to do, to make doing what they want to do easier!" conspiracy. Tell me, how do the reptoids use their weather control devices to make this happen more effectively?

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47117783)

you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government.

For crying out loud in the dark, man: WHO PASSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

one thing that this bill cannot do is force insurance companies to keep offering any specific plans that they previously offered - or keep offering plans at X dollar amounts.

Another thing the law cannot do is upend the laws of economics.

And just how would the force of idiocy be able to pull off some sort of grand change?

One example method would be an Affordable Care Act cram-down, which see.

Tell me, how do the reptoids use their weather control devices to make this happen more effectively?

Don't be fooled! The weather control devices are merely a front for the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to corrupt our Precious Bodily Fluids.

Re:You can hope in one hand ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 months ago | (#47117993)

you'll find that far more often than not the change is coming from the insurance company without any direction from the federal government.

For crying out loud in the dark, man: WHO PASSED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?

Politicians who are owned by the insurance industry.

one thing that this bill cannot do is force insurance companies to keep offering any specific plans that they previously offered - or keep offering plans at X dollar amounts.

Another thing the law cannot do is upend the laws of economics.

And where do you see it attempting to do such a thing? I have not seen it setting off any such intent.

And just how would the force of idiocy be able to pull off some sort of grand change?

One example method would be an Affordable Care Act cram-down, which see.

The bill is awful, yes. Grand change, however, it is not.

That was cool (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47108159)

You know... the Benghazi reference... Milk it, baby! for all it's worth.

moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 months ago | (#47110377)

Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there.

[The] problem is, they don't care, because they don't see that as a problem. They see the Constitution itself as the problem. (Why do you think BHO studied it?)

Appeal to agreed-upon rules only works if they're agreed upon.

I thought the 14th Amendment (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47110731)

"Problem is, you've cheated the 9th & 10th Amendments (in a century-long tradition of such) to get there."

I thought the 14th Amendment replaced the 9th & 10th.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47113215)

Interesting theory; I've absolutely never heard that one before. Could you elaborate as to why?

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47115053)

Those sounds you hear, the banging, clanging and cursing, is the Marxist rooting around in his ass for a response which, when reduced to text, does not make him look like a retard.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47116829)

Could you elaborate as to why?

Probably something to do with applying the national constitution, particularly the bill of rights, to the states. Many of them don't like that. I can hardly sympathize.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47117717)

The term is "incorporation". Whether that legal doctrine is tantamount to striking the 9th & 10th Amendments is up for discussion. The empirical observation since Wilson might be: "Yep".

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47118683)

Starting with Brown V the Board of Education, and then Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton, 14th Amendment rights have been held by the Supreme Court to utterly trample any hint of state's rights. We're seeing a repeat of that today in the gay marriage by judicial fiat decisions.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47119243)

There is nothing wrong with "fiat" decisions that assure and protect equal rights. The states are corrupt little fiefdoms and must be told to behave. And I sure don't mind seeing the hammer put down hard as hell on those damn bigots who think they can treat minorities and "outliers" as second and third class citizens.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47129305)

There is nothing wrong with "fiat" decisions that assure and protect equal rights.

Not a single one of those decisions "assure and protect equal rights". They're all about putting the interests of one arbitrary group above the interests of another arbitrary group., such as your "damn bigots" and "minorities" and "outliers", all three of which are completely arbitrary groupings of human beings that should not have special rights to be protected.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47133177)

This is a logical outgrowth of the state worship.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47134187)

I see, so the state should be allowed to force segregated schools and other public services, and to allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group? I think you're doing like Smitty there. You see equality as a threat because it cuts into your privileges and status over them. You don't see them moving up, as much as you believe it brings you down. Well, in the case of privilege it does, and I'm all for it. It's the thousands of years of repression that caused all this, and now you are seeing the consequences. It would have been totally different if you all had learned to accept people that "aren't your kind" at the onset. "Live and let live" is just not your cup of tea, it appears.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47134631)

allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group

Workin' hard, trying to understand why "open to the public" means "public sector". If the business taxed the public against their will, then I could see where the business would be bound to offer service.
The whole notion of freedom of contract is as intrinsic to what used to be our culture as is freedom of speech and private property. But hey: shut up and pay for gender re-assignment surgery, you stupid peasant!

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47136027)

Business controls the government, and receives many special privileges for it, and our taxes go to their support. That is the primary purpose of your military. Business is taxing the public. The government is its collection agency, with guns and everything. If you want to profit from society, you must serve all without discrimination. You are supporting Jim Crow.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47137803)

Riiiiight. If what you say were true. . .then why not dispense with elections? I'm sure you're going to plead entertainment, or something, but what if you're just simply full of crap?

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47138813)

...but what if you're just simply full of crap?

Because I'm not. And it is necessary to pacify people to reduce the amount of resulting property damage if they figure it out. The elections have definitely proven to be pure show, your preemptive 'shhh' not withstanding. Just look at the kinds of people who win. Obviously you have decided to dismiss all alternatives to your defined narrative out of hand, but all the evidence you need is there. You're just appealing to authority, in fear of losing your privilege.

*sigh* All this just leads back around to your distaste to one particular person, and not the policy itself. You still have yet to show you have "learned" anything.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47139109)

You're just appealing to authority, in fear of losing your privilege.

I have to admit that this whole "privilege" play is a novel way to trick people into a 10th Commandment violation. Can't fault the effectiveness on the lumpenproletariat, no sir.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47139211)

I don't expect you to understand. Ultimately It leads back to explaining water to a fish.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47140179)

Or just refusing to play your whole envy-based game. :-)

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47141817)

No envy here. I have it quite good. I just figure the truth is an anathema to what you were told to believe since childhood. So of course you will use any rationalization you can dream up to reject it out of hand, as you just showed, thankyouverymuch. Some day you will accept responsibility for your actions. It all depends on your level of introspection. I, personally, don't play the *devil made me do it* routine. In the physical universe everything has a physical cause. But in your circle, it's all "god's will". Well, yes, it actually is. We just call it laws of nature.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#47143809)

Some day you will accept responsibility for your actions.

How is it that you possibly contend I have not accepted responsibility for my actions? What a totally jacked up assertion, sir.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 1 month ago | (#47164267)

How is it that you possibly contend I have not accepted responsibility for my actions?

Your aforementioned tribalism precludes your awareness of it. You are simply on autopilot. Don't take it as an accusation the way you usually do in such instances. It just plain old fact, hidden in plain sight.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 1 month ago | (#47164479)

Were you Profane MuthaFucka in a past account? Your arguments sound strangely familiar to his.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 1 month ago | (#47167739)

I think I had a lengthy argument with PMF about whether cancer is a just a botched cell mutation.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 1 month ago | (#47167733)

How can I have any self-awareness, if on autopilot? I guess if you switch contexts quickly enough, you can appear to play all the instruments in the band, simultaneously. You, sir, are a master.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47140935)

Not everything is "Jim Crow", you racist idiot.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47141835)

You right. It's just plain old bigotry. Leave it at home please. Out in public we encourage respect.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47142937)

That's nothing more than thought control, you bigot.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47143391)

So, "bigotry" against bigots is bigotry? That is interesting. Dumb, but interesting. I wonder if all those fine Southern Gentlemen felt the same way against abolitionists back in the day... Probably so, as it was interference with their property rights. You.too, seem to be a firm believer in *might makes right*.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47144089)

In the end, right makes right. Because evil does stupid things like smoke pot all day and never accomplishes anything.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 1 month ago | (#47164435)

Because evil does stupid things like smoke pot all day and never accomplishes anything.

You are repeating lies and propaganda. That is all you can base your opinion on, and thus can be dismissed out of hand without further comment You would ignore them anyway, so there's no point in dragging it out. But I won't call you stupid, merely willfully ignorant, which is the work of the devil, yes, evil. It is you prohibitionists that are wrecking the planet and life for the rest of us. That's a fact, Jack!

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47173061)

Which you say right after being a prohibitionist yourself. See what I mean?

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47140927)

"I see, so the state should be allowed to force segregated schools and other public services, and to allow a business open to the public to refuse service to any specific group?"

If that is what is required to maintain peace in the local community, then who are YOU to tell that local community otherwise?

But here's a hint- merely banning certain language in law is enough to get that done. You don't need specific laws for specific groups.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47141867)

I am totally against banning certain language. A person has a right to say what he wants. He/she also has a right to live where he/she wants, and to be treated with respect. Failure to show that respect only illustrates the fallacy of your religion. And it justifies the ridicule thrown at it. The high priests are common charlatans.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47142945)

And yet, you just argued for banning language. Your religion is a big failure at running this country, with it's arbitrary unCatholic separations of humanity. At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47143383)

And yet, you just argued for banning language.

Where?

At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

It certainly does not! And even if it did preach such, it acts very differently.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 months ago | (#47144111)

Doctrine of Original Sin, and I'd argue that it specifically doesn't act very differently. You just don't understand the concept of mercy.

Re:I thought the 14th Amendment (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 1 month ago | (#47164527)

At least my religion preaches that everybody is equal- equally sinful, but still equal.

It certainly does not!

Everything that the Catholic Church teaches is published; a simple glance at the Catechism would prove MH42's assertion about the Catholic Church correct. The Church does indeed preach equality.

Any counter-example you could produce would likely be the result of your own misunderstanding of what the Church teaches (and why)...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...