Conquer Club

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?

Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...

derail even? The point is about the timing of Obamacare, and shines a light on how Obama's policy predictions and results missed the mark by a moon shot. We are currently going through continuous rounds of credit rating downgrades, and Obama and Democrats just keep ringing up trillions in more debt and pulling more money out of the private sector which isn't exactly going to help the economy. The very fact that he wants to change the conversation to the 90's tells us everything we need to know about just how weak his case is.

Phatscotty wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?

Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...

derail even? The point is about the timing of Obamacare, and shines a light on how Obama's policy predictions and results missed the mark by a moon shot. We are currently going through continuous rounds of credit rating downgrades, and Obama and Democrats just keep ringing up trillions in more debt and pulling more money out of the private sector which isn't exactly going to help the economy. The very fact that he wants to change the conversation to the 90's tells us everything we need to know about just how weak his case is.

How weak my case is? Tell me, Phatscotty...just exactly what is "my case" that you seem to believe is so weak?

Unless you think my case is "you should stop being a partisan hack", you'd be wrong...but you show how strong my "case" is with every post you make.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?

Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...

derail even? The point is about the timing of Obamacare, and shines a light on how Obama's policy predictions and results missed the mark by a moon shot. We are currently going through continuous rounds of credit rating downgrades, and Obama and Democrats just keep ringing up trillions in more debt and pulling more money out of the private sector which isn't exactly going to help the economy. The very fact that he wants to change the conversation to the 90's tells us everything we need to know about just how weak his case is.

How weak my case is? Tell me, Phatscotty...just exactly what is "my case" that you seem to believe is so weak?

Unless you think my case is "you should stop being a partisan hack", you'd be wrong...but you show how strong my "case" is with every post you make.

My post pointing out you trying to change the subject and trying to make it partisan certainly does not make your case strong lol. You haven't even touched the topic matter, so your case strengthening is not even possible. We only know that you are trying to avoid how much Obamacare will cost and how that will impact the current economic situation (spending trillions more when we are already short trillions), which represents weakness and willful ignorance on your part.

I understand since you bragged about Obamacare and threw it in our faces with your comment "Obamacare, motherfucker!" so you are connected to Obamacare at the hip as a supporter, all while simultaneously harassing people about not voting for Gary Johnson. You are a nut

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote: How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?

Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...

derail even? The point is about the timing of Obamacare, and shines a light on how Obama's policy predictions and results missed the mark by a moon shot. We are currently going through continuous rounds of credit rating downgrades, and Obama and Democrats just keep ringing up trillions in more debt and pulling more money out of the private sector which isn't exactly going to help the economy. The very fact that he wants to change the conversation to the 90's tells us everything we need to know about just how weak his case is.

How weak my case is? Tell me, Phatscotty...just exactly what is "my case" that you seem to believe is so weak?

Unless you think my case is "you should stop being a partisan hack", you'd be wrong...but you show how strong my "case" is with every post you make.

My post pointing out you trying to change the subject and trying to make it partisan certainly does not make your case strong lol.

Your post itself was partisan, so I didn't need any effort at all to do so.

Phatscotty wrote:We only know that you are trying to avoid how much Obamacare will cost and how that will impact the current economic situation (spending trillions more when we are already short trillions), which represents weakness and willful ignorance on your part.

I wonder when you'll get through your thick skull what my actual position is ObamaCare, Obama himself, Zimmerman...all these things you seem to get my position completely and clearly wrong while most others seem to understand my position easily enough. I guess you're just "special" that hypocritical, dishonest way.

Phatscotty wrote:I understand since you bragged about Obamacare and threw it in our faces with your comment "Obamacare, motherfucker!" so you are connected to Obamacare at the hip as a supporter, all while simultaneously harassing people about not voting for Gary Johnson. You are a nut

And you are a liar.

I realize that cognitive dissonance is a strong part of your personality, but you do realize that statement by me was a response to your statement in this exact quote:

Phatscotty wrote:It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close. Now stfu and let Freedom ring

In other words, since you so highly support "letting the vote speak and everyone stop complaining about it", you should be saying precisely the same thing about ObamaCare. But being your hypocritical self, you couldn't do that.

Thanks for once again showing your true dishonest colors in trying to paint that as a support for ObamaCare, though. It seems you can't get through the day without outright lying about me in some form or fashion. You are the very definition of a troll. Tell me, do you ever get tired of being schooled by your own words?

Phatscotty wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

How come your pretty picture doesn't show what it was like during Clinton's administration?

Because then I would have to give credit to the House Republicans who forced Clinton to do the right thing, all while Clinton was kicking and screaming to do the wrong thing, but that wouldn't have anything to do with the current mess we are in. Show one that includes the 90's, and the next post is "why doesn't that show Reagan?" It's a retarded line of thought that bears no meaning or relevance, but I'm quite sure you are perfectly aware of that.

This chart is to focus on the extremely recent past, the last 6 years, and gives context and a relevant timeline

Anyways, how is this even about Clinton... That was in 99, this is STARTING in 07.

I guess something else to argue about...

derail even? The point is about the timing of Obamacare, and shines a light on how Obama's policy predictions and results missed the mark by a moon shot. We are currently going through continuous rounds of credit rating downgrades, and Obama and Democrats just keep ringing up trillions in more debt and pulling more money out of the private sector which isn't exactly going to help the economy. The very fact that he wants to change the conversation to the 90's tells us everything we need to know about just how weak his case is.

Gee... and here I thought we lived in a Representative DEMOCRACY...

Apparently, its a conservative dictatorship and anything else is just anti-American.

john9blue wrote:i think player just thinks that businesses should have more responsibilities than they currently do, and she's willing to use governmental force to make them carry out those responsibilities.

True, to a point.

I am no more anti-business than I am anti-fire. The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality. This thread is a perfect example. How many times and how many people have claimed that providing basic healthcare for all employees is just not reasonable because it would cut into profits too much?

PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality.

Never in the history of capitalism have ethics and morality been more important to business than profits. Corporations are incentivized to maximize profit - nothing more, nothing less. Anything is justified if it maximizes profits.

Even ethics and morality.

They got most of Obama's philosophy wrong, It's not "ObamaCare" it's "ObamaCares(AboutHisCareer)".

PLAYER57832 wrote: True, to a point.

I am no more anti-business than I am anti-fire. The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality. This thread is a perfect example. How many times and how many people have claimed that providing basic healthcare for all employees is just not reasonable because it would cut into profits too much?

that's because the purpose of a business is not to be ethical. a business that is ethical on its own merits will have a disadvantage against a business that isn't. business ethics MUST be enforced by the government. oh, and the government can be unethical too, so don't count on them too much.

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: True, to a point.

I am no more anti-business than I am anti-fire. The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality. This thread is a perfect example. How many times and how many people have claimed that providing basic healthcare for all employees is just not reasonable because it would cut into profits too much?

that's because the purpose of a business is not to be ethical. a business that is ethical on its own merits will have a disadvantage against a business that isn't. business ethics MUST be enforced by the government. oh, and the government can be unethical too, so don't count on them too much.

Nope, ethics come from people, not business or governments. They merely reflect the ethics of those in power. The trouble with too much business today is that corporations are specifically designed to shield those gaining the most from much of the real risk or consequence of their action.

Want to dump garbage into a creek.. a nice officer will be happy to escort you to a room with bars.

Do it as a corporation and by the time the guilt is found, you will have long since sold the company (or just gone out of business), long since spent the money. The bigger the damage, the less likely any individual will be found culpable.

Further, we are not even allowed to act proactively to prevent most damage. If a chemical is put out, we have the burden to prove it is dangerous. Only minimal testing is required to ensure it won't cause IMMEDIATE harm. Any long-term damage is not even considered. Once damage is found, the guilty parties have gone, spent their money in almost all cases, leaving society to clean up as they can. THAT is why our economy is in the tank. Corporations are built to pass on responsibility to others, to avoid responsibility for most of the actions the individuals within those corporations commit.

Individuals who want to limit healthcare to women can hide behind the guise of "morality" and finance to get their wishes. Won't be long before we are so indebted to China it will be their "morality" we have to accept. Yet... none of that matters because its "just business".

I guess free healthcare is not the proper type of "Affordable" for the Affordable Care Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/obama ... ed-people/

Night Strike wrote:I guess free healthcare is not the proper type of "Affordable" for the Affordable Care Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/obama ... ed-people/

If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.

With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.

This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.

jj3044 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I guess free healthcare is not the proper type of "Affordable" for the Affordable Care Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/obama ... ed-people/

If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.

With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.

This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.

Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?

the only way to judge whether or not a health law is good is to count the number of people who are dying in the street?

mordigan wrote:the only way to judge whether or not a health law is good is to count the number of people who are dying in the street?

According to the progressives, apparently. At least that's their rationale for opposing those who wish to repeal this specific law. I'm just using their own standards, no matter how ludicrous they are.

Night Strike wrote: no matter how ludicrous

Is a good paraphrase of this Off Topic topic.


--Andy

you're probably exaggerating, night strike. i doubt there are many people whose sole reason for defending obamacare is that 'it will stop people dying in the streets'.

in any case, i have no idea who you mean by 'progressives'. everyone is a 'progressive' to at least some extent. you might need to be a bit more specific.

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I guess free healthcare is not the proper type of "Affordable" for the Affordable Care Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/obama ... ed-people/

If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.

With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.

This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.

Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?

Not at all, you are way off base. Lower income individuals will receive subsidies, up to 400%FPL (about 89k a year for a family of four, for example). Paying for insurance will be much less costly for these individuals (and us, and the system) than racking hundreds of thousands in debt and going bankrupt when something bad DOES happen to them.

More people insured means more people get their age/gender preventive screenings, which means LESS people dying from preventable chronic illnesses, contrary to your baseless point.

Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.

Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.

Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?

is this a complaint that more people will work more than 40 hours in a week? that's a super pussy thing to complain about.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.

Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?

I think it definitely was a detriment to full time jobs. I think companies use the law as an excuse to cut full time jobs that were getting benefits to part time jobs.

jj3044 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I guess free healthcare is not the proper type of "Affordable" for the Affordable Care Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/08/obama ... ed-people/

If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.

With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.

This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.

Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?

Not at all, you are way off base. Lower income individuals will receive subsidies, up to 400%FPL (about 89k a year for a family of four, for example). Paying for insurance will be much less costly for these individuals (and us, and the system) than racking hundreds of thousands in debt and going bankrupt when something bad DOES happen to them.

More people insured means more people get their age/gender preventive screenings, which means LESS people dying from preventable chronic illnesses, contrary to your baseless point.

So it's okay for the government to give people money (paid for by the rest of us) to buy health insurance in order to get health care, but it's not okay for the hospital to just give that health care to people for free directly? How does that even make sense? Why do we need to add 2 other middle-men, both siphoning off money, to do the exact same thing? See, that's why this entire law is patently absurd.

it just means that rather than doling out free health care, which is like an act of charity, the government doles out money, which people use to pay for their health care. this allows them to believe that they are providing for themselves and to feel a little more pride in their situation.

Evil Semp wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.

Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?

I think it definitely was a detriment to full time jobs. I think companies use the law as an excuse to cut full time jobs that were getting benefits to part time jobs.

Do you think the supporters of the Affordable Care Act could have foreseen that happening?