Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured   (newyorker.com) divider line 415
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Americans, Medi-Cal, insurance agents  
•       •       •

2339 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



415 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-11-20 08:24:11 AM  
You mean in the world of Twitter and 24 hour news, facts and logic get overshadowed by teabagger and libtard rants?
 
2013-11-20 08:36:18 AM  
Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.
 
2013-11-20 09:24:09 AM  

WTF Indeed: You mean in the world of Twitter and 24 hour news, facts and logic get overshadowed by teabagger and libtard rants?


News is boring

I want to know what size dress Kim K is no wearing. I want to know how I can increase my penis size by following a shortened link. I want to know when Sarah Palin says something stupid and ignore everything else in the speech she said. I want to talk about Obama's incredibly idiotic paperclip choice. Dog whistle! Strawmen!
 
2013-11-20 09:29:25 AM  
I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


s24.postimg.org
 
2013-11-20 09:35:45 AM  

cman: I want to know when Sarah Palin says something stupid and ignore everything else in the speech she said.


Unpossible.   Everything she says is stupid.
 
2013-11-20 09:42:55 AM  
Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.
 
2013-11-20 10:09:40 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Wanna bet?
 
2013-11-20 10:10:20 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


that's a bit optimistic for 1000 years of teabagger reign.
 
2013-11-20 10:11:28 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Liberalism and ObamaCare won't die.

They will surely evolve, tho.
 
2013-11-20 10:11:35 AM  

mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?


I, too, will take that bet.
 
2013-11-20 10:18:02 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I, too, will take that bet.


I would, but the odds are terrible. And Sloth will never pay out, anyway.
 
2013-11-20 10:18:40 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


I'm pretty sure that's just the site of the inauguration.
 
2013-11-20 10:19:06 AM  
When the "liberal democrat" president governs to the right of Richard Nixon, you know your country has slid right.
 
2013-11-20 10:19:26 AM  
Hopefully liberalism does die and liberals can finally move further to left.
 
2013-11-20 10:21:36 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Nothing like being blind to the truth. Half a million already signed up through medicare/"obamacare". There will be millions by January.

The boat sailed. You're standing on the dock, screaming at everyone "it's coming back! Just wait here!"
 
2013-11-20 10:23:30 AM  
Why won't the biggest change to healthcare delivery in the United States since Medicare happen faster?
 
2013-11-20 10:25:07 AM  

SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:33 AM  
While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:38 AM  

mediablitz: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Nothing like being blind to the truth. Half a million already signed up through medicare/"obamacare". There will be millions by January.

The boat sailed. You're standing on the dock, screaming at everyone "it's coming back! Just wait here!"


They declared Obama care a failure in March 2010.  Should be no surprise that they will call it a failure 2 weeks into it, 2 months into it, 6 months into it....

I stand by my original prediction, even the GOP won't campaign on an outright repeal of Obamacare by 2016.  They will campaign on fixing it or replacing it.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:45 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Why won't the biggest change to healthcare delivery in the United States since Medicare happen faster?


And flawless! It must be absolutely flawless, otherwise we should tear the whole thing down!
 
2013-11-20 10:28:21 AM  

Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.


Can you expound on that?
 
2013-11-20 10:28:55 AM  

BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.


i146.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-20 10:29:27 AM  
oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.
 
2013-11-20 10:29:33 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.


They've been itching for a controversy to fill their "Lame duck second term" cycle since the "Did Obama order the IRS to specificallly target only Tea Party groups?" story turned out to be complete trumped up horseshiat and Benghazi .turned out to be a complete dud outside of the Derposphere.
 
2013-11-20 10:29:49 AM  
Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?
 
2013-11-20 10:30:57 AM  

BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.


....ouch.
 
2013-11-20 10:31:01 AM  

Tricky Chicken: oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.


Yes, because you've lied to yourself about a "liberal media" for 30 years now means the rest of us are as stupid as you.
 
2013-11-20 10:31:03 AM  

nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?


I went full derp myself.  anyone else? Beuler?
 
2013-11-20 10:31:20 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


So Republicans are going to run on stripping away privately purchased insurance from hundreds of thousands of Americas, re-implementing pre-existing condition clauses, and putting lifetime coverage caps on children with cancer?
 
2013-11-20 10:31:41 AM  
If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.
 
2013-11-20 10:34:22 AM  

nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?


You must be new here.
 
2013-11-20 10:36:05 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.


Complaining about a circlejerk on an internet forum is like complaining about the Pope being Catholic.  Your assessment is right, but what exactly did you expect?

/This post made more sense in my head.
 
2013-11-20 10:36:37 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


I pictured feudal Europe. A big manor house and a bunch of serfs.
 
2013-11-20 10:37:58 AM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.

Yes, because you've lied to yourself about a "liberal media" for 30 years now means the rest of us are as stupid as you.


The but hurt is strooong with this one.  Tell me about your evil conservative mean media...It is sooo unfair for them to point out how something you like so much is actually bad...

How does this make you feel?
 
2013-11-20 10:38:26 AM  
States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.
 
2013-11-20 10:38:59 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.


By Ayn Rand's mighty pen, sign me up for this bet as well.

500 Quatloos against the sloth like one.
 
2013-11-20 10:39:56 AM  
Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.
 
2013-11-20 10:40:59 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.


Oh, wow, I haven't seen *you* show your face around here for a while. Not since the election, but perhaps I'd just missed it.
 
2013-11-20 10:41:38 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


You mean like Democrat Detroit now.
 
2013-11-20 10:41:42 AM  

InmanRoshi: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

So Republicans are going to run on stripping away privately purchased insurance from hundreds of thousands of Americas, re-implementing pre-existing condition clauses, and putting lifetime coverage caps on children with cancer?


Just the first part.
 
2013-11-20 10:41:46 AM  
Well, I'm sure the liberal MSM mainstream media will get around to doing extensive segments involving interviews with people that are happy with the ACA and experts offering advice and explanations of problems.

Any minute now.
 
Bf+
2013-11-20 10:43:55 AM  

BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.



Dayum!
Sloth is going to need Obamacare to help pay for the burn treatments.
 
2013-11-20 10:45:32 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Good, another conservative on board with single payer. You guys shouldn't have fought against it 3 years ago
 
2013-11-20 10:45:48 AM  

Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.


When was the last time you studied actuarial science?
 
2013-11-20 10:45:54 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.


Obamacare dieing to Single Payer (paving the way for it)? Utterly possible in my book. So, no, I won't take that bet.
 
2013-11-20 10:46:04 AM  

Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.


Thankfully, my state will soon be joining the caucus of the civilized.
www.lifesitenews.com

/McAuliffe might not be the greatest, but he promised to expand Medicaid and take over Virginia's exchange.
 
2013-11-20 10:47:47 AM  

qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?


Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increases.  I.e., a death spiral.

Of course, the cynical folks will suspect that the Obamas and Sebelius's of the world are hoping that the system fails into single payer.  But that's just speculation, right?
 
2013-11-20 10:50:09 AM  

Heliovdrake: Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.

By Ayn Rand's mighty pen, sign me up for this bet as well.

500 Quatloos against the sloth like one.


All Fark bets must be made in gold-pressed latinum.  Your quatloos are no good here, buddy.
 
2013-11-20 10:50:09 AM  

Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.


And stuff like a Virginia state senator's son who gets evaluated but since there are no psych beds available he's sent home and gets all stabby on his dad then shoots himself. It's interesting that Virginia isn't expanding Medicaid to help poor people pay for their Obamacare. Not that a state senator's son is poor, right?

States' Rights, every damned day, especially here in George "Macaca" Allen's Confederate Paradise.
 
2013-11-20 10:51:57 AM  

Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.


Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!
 
2013-11-20 10:52:12 AM  
I don't think we are supposed to blame the press... aren't wee supposed to blame crazy teabaggers and Big Oil or something like that?

Haliburton is opressing us and trying to repeal Obamacare!
 
2013-11-20 10:52:19 AM  

Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.


Your premise is impossible because free market.  FREEE MARKET!!

www1.sulekha.com
 
2013-11-20 10:53:24 AM  

Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?


See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/
 
2013-11-20 10:53:26 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.

And stuff like a Virginia state senator's son who gets evaluated but since there are no psych beds available he's sent home and gets all stabby on his dad then shoots himself. It's interesting that Virginia isn't expanding Medicaid to help poor people pay for their Obamacare. Not that a state senator's son is poor, right?

States' Rights, every damned day, especially here in George "Macaca" Allen's Confederate Paradise.


Thankfully it looks like it's going to be expanded under the new Governor.

Assuming the teabagger attorney general (if he wins) doesn't try to immediately impeach him...
 
2013-11-20 10:53:46 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: States' Rights, every damned day, especially here in George "Macaca" Allen's Confederate Paradise.


Why, yes; I do always -without exception- include "Northern" whenever I tell anyone that I am from Virginia.
 
2013-11-20 10:54:30 AM  

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?

Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increase ...


Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks. But the initial numbers are nothing but a neat way to distract people. We all know that pickup is going to skyrocket around two dates: December 15th, and March 31st. The first will happen because that's the day people who want health insurance on January 1st must pay their first month's premium by. The second will happen because that's the day people who want to avoid the individual shared responsibility payment must pay their first month's premium by. Those are the two times the age distribution will actually matter, and the first isn't nearly as important as the second because insurers priced their plans knowing people would have until March 31st to sign up.
 
2013-11-20 10:56:02 AM  

netcentric: I don't think we are supposed to blame the press... aren't wee supposed to blame crazy teabaggers and Big Oil or something like that?

Haliburton is opressing us and trying to repeal Obamacare!


That is why this is so sweet!  They can't hate the press, because they are so in bed together.  It is like watching Michael Vick getting maulled by his own dog.
 
2013-11-20 10:56:29 AM  
B-BUT THE FARTBONGO CARE WEBSITE IS CRAP~!

/RW shill mode off
 
2013-11-20 10:56:54 AM  

netcentric: I don't think we are supposed to blame the press... aren't wee supposed to blame crazy teabaggers and Big Oil or something like that?

Haliburton is opressing us and trying to repeal Obamacare!


Teabaggers?  A little bit.  Their rabid anti-Obamaism certainly puts pressure on Republicans to be rabidly anti-Obamacare, although most, if not all, would probably oppose it anyway.

I don't think the others have much to do with it.
 
2013-11-20 10:57:11 AM  

Garet Garrett: Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?

See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/


That article explicitly says about the slow uptake by younger people, and I quote: "How worried should we be? Not too much. At least not yet." And since when were Matthew O'Brien and The Atlantic's editors lackeys who can't stop themselves from sucking the venom out of Obama's black mamba?
 
2013-11-20 10:58:40 AM  

Serious Black: Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks.


Let's not forget the 6.6M young folks who stayed on or joined their parents plans.

An Estimated 6.6 Million Young Adults Stayed on or Joined Their Parents' Health Plans in 2011 Who Would Not Have Been Eligible Prior to Passage of the Affordable Care Act
 
2013-11-20 10:58:43 AM  

Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.


Republican state governments throw the citizens they represent under a bus to score political points? When has that ever happened before?
 
2013-11-20 10:59:04 AM  

qorkfiend: nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?

You must be new here.


I have been here long enough to know that many farkers have strong opinions, but many also have poor reading comprehension, or just read a misleading headline and start commenting

Left Wing Derp, or Right Wing Derp is still Derp people.
 
2013-11-20 10:59:12 AM  

Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?


Yes, but it's still 0bammy's fault.  Or something like such as...
 
2013-11-20 11:00:59 AM  

Tricky Chicken: netcentric: I don't think we are supposed to blame the press... aren't wee supposed to blame crazy teabaggers and Big Oil or something like that?

Haliburton is opressing us and trying to repeal Obamacare!

That is why this is so sweet!  They can't hate the press, because they are so in bed together.  It is like watching Michael Vick getting maulled by his own dog.


It's fun watching the results of too much echo-chamber.
sad, but fun.


Knock yourselves out, guys!
 
2013-11-20 11:01:27 AM  

Serious Black: Garet Garrett: Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?

See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/

That article explicitly says about the slow uptake by younger people, and I quote: "How worried should we be? Not too much. At least not yet." And since when were Matthew O'Brien and The Atlantic's editors lackeys who can't stop themselves from sucking the venom out of Obama's black mamba?


Whatever man, reading the whole article is for chumps.
 
2013-11-20 11:02:42 AM  

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?

Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increase ...


Sounds reasonable, thanks for the explanation. That balance is, of course, what the individual mandate is about, but you're probably right and it won't force enough people into the system to balance out the others.

Single payer is speculation, sure, but I think there would be more pressure (from the public, at least; who knows what various special interest groups would push for) for at least a public option than there would be to move back to the pre-ACA system.
 
2013-11-20 11:02:47 AM  

Skleenar: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Your premise is impossible because free market.  FREEE MARKET!!

[www1.sulekha.com image 413x479]


 sullydish.files.wordpress.com

It's pretty remarkable at how inherently awful the free market is when it comes to healthcare.
 
2013-11-20 11:03:48 AM  

Rhino_man: Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.

Thankfully, my state will soon be joining the caucus of the civilized.
[www.lifesitenews.com image 618x217]

/McAuliffe might not be the greatest, but he promised to expand Medicaid and take over Virginia's exchange.


Is Virginia required to have a balanced budget?
 
2013-11-20 11:04:17 AM  

nunyadang: qorkfiend: nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?

You must be new here.

I have been here long enough to know that many farkers have strong opinions, but many also have poor reading comprehension, or just read a misleading headline and start commenting

Left Wing Derp, or Right Wing Derp is still Derp people.


Left wing derp is derp. Right wing derp is national policy.
 
2013-11-20 11:04:19 AM  

nunyadang: qorkfiend: nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?

You must be new here.

I have been here long enough to know that many farkers have strong opinions, but many also have poor reading comprehension, or just read a misleading headline and start commenting

Left Wing Derp, or Right Wing Derp is still Derp people.


What you describe is standard operating procedure on the Politics tab.
 
2013-11-20 11:04:55 AM  

InmanRoshi: Skleenar: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Your premise is impossible because free market.  FREEE MARKET!!

[www1.sulekha.com image 413x479]

 [sullydish.files.wordpress.com image 580x446]

It's pretty remarkable at how inherently awful the free market is when it comes to healthcare.


Healthcare has a massive agency problem at pretty much every stage in the chain.
 
2013-11-20 11:04:58 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!


Funny how those GOP states are the states screaming the most about "STATES RIGHTS!" and instead invited that dagburned fedral gubmint in to run things for them.
 
2013-11-20 11:05:28 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Serious Black: Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks.

Let's not forget the 6.6M young folks who stayed on or joined their parents plans.

An Estimated 6.6 Million Young Adults Stayed on or Joined Their Parents' Health Plans in 2011 Who Would Not Have Been Eligible Prior to Passage of the Affordable Care Act


This is true. There are also numerous surveys that show younger Americans think it is important for them to have health insurance at rates about equal to the population at large and that they are the most likely people to purchase insurance through the exchanges. This makes sense because way more of them are currently uninsured than people above the age of 35. It's certainly possible young people will en masse go uninsured next year, but I just don't see any way you can predict it other than ignoring all of that evidence.
 
2013-11-20 11:05:33 AM  

Skleenar: It's fun watching the results of too much echo-chamber.
sad, but fun.


It's like watching two dumb dogs fight over the same turd.
 
2013-11-20 11:06:39 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Rhino_man: Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.

Thankfully, my state will soon be joining the caucus of the civilized.
[www.lifesitenews.com image 618x217]

/McAuliffe might not be the greatest, but he promised to expand Medicaid and take over Virginia's exchange.

Is Virginia required to have a balanced budget?


Every state but Vermont explicitly has a provisions requiring balanced budgets, but the states have tons of ways to render that a toothless requirement.
 
2013-11-20 11:09:23 AM  
Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.  Liberals need to go to the left and start actually doing shiat instead of just griping and biatching about conservatives and the GOP.
 
2013-11-20 11:10:53 AM  
So the problem isn't that government, by default, can do nothing right, but that when half the people IN government are actively trying to f*ck everything up, we get dysfunctional government? Oh. Okay. Well that's a lesson I'll be sure to remember for the rest of my life.
 
2013-11-20 11:13:14 AM  
FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.
 
2013-11-20 11:15:36 AM  

InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.


Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.
 
2013-11-20 11:16:03 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Serious Black: Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks.

Let's not forget the 6.6M young folks who stayed on or joined their parents plans.

An Estimated 6.6 Million Young Adults Stayed on or Joined Their Parents' Health Plans in 2011 Who Would Not Have Been Eligible Prior to Passage of the Affordable Care Act


Yes but 3 million people have to upgrade their farking terrible plans so game, set and potato my friend.
 
2013-11-20 11:16:27 AM  
As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".
 
2013-11-20 11:16:52 AM  

cman: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Liberalism and ObamaCare won't die.

They will surely evolve, tho.


like Pokemon?!
 
2013-11-20 11:17:40 AM  

FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.


You think conservatives support change?

LOL
 
2013-11-20 11:17:43 AM  

FarkedOver: Liberals need to go to the left and start actually doing shiat instead of just griping and biatching about conservatives and the GOP.


Word. The Democrats should quit being such obstructionists and start trying to passing some meaningful legislation. They should start with a tax cut on high incomes and capital gains.
 
2013-11-20 11:17:44 AM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


1/10
 
2013-11-20 11:19:09 AM  

Felgraf: Kangaroo_Ralph: If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.

Oh, wow, I haven't seen *you* show your face around here for a while. Not since the election, but perhaps I'd just missed it.


He was around for a few OBAMAPHONE!!!!  WELFARE QUEENS BUYING LOBSTER1!!!!1111 threads, but then he crawled back in his cave.  You missed.....nothing of course.
 
2013-11-20 11:19:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You think conservatives support change?

LOL


No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.
 
2013-11-20 11:19:26 AM  

Serious Black: Dusk-You-n-Me: Serious Black: Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks.

Let's not forget the 6.6M young folks who stayed on or joined their parents plans.

An Estimated 6.6 Million Young Adults Stayed on or Joined Their Parents' Health Plans in 2011 Who Would Not Have Been Eligible Prior to Passage of the Affordable Care Act

This is true. There are also numerous surveys that show younger Americans think it is important for them to have health insurance at rates about equal to the population at large and that they are the most likely people to purchase insurance through the exchanges. This makes sense because way more of them are currently uninsured than people above the age of 35. It's certainly possible young people will en masse go uninsured next year, but I just don't see any way you can predict it other than ignoring all of that evidence.


It is important to deem it a complete and utter failure before the evidence comes in.  I've said from the beginning, that the GOP's greatest fear was and has always been that Obamacare would be successful.  In their hearts, they fear it will work and that is why there is a panic to kill it as soon as possible.
 
2013-11-20 11:20:03 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.

You think conservatives support change?

LOL


This is a problem in this country.  You can only be seen as a conservative or a liberal.  Fark that shiat.
 
2013-11-20 11:22:02 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.


Things like what a celebrity did ,videos about babies doing stuff and asking if everything is a good thing or a bad thing.
 
2013-11-20 11:22:16 AM  

FarkedOver: No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.


Whom are, by and large...liberal. Right?
 
2013-11-20 11:23:06 AM  
I think  FarkedOver may be conflating "liberal" with "centrist democrat"
 
2013-11-20 11:23:35 AM  

TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".


It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.  Does any Farker know who this guy is?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-20 11:24:09 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


Close, but you are missing the 1 km tall, Glorious Crystal Randian Tower full of bootstrappy Johnny and Jenny Galts.
 
2013-11-20 11:24:20 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.

Whom are, by and large...liberal anti-capitalists like communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. Right?


There now that makes much more sense.
 
2013-11-20 11:25:01 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I think  FarkedOver may be conflating "liberal" with "centrist democrat"


If a Conservative was ever confronted with an actual Liberal, they might shiat their pants and go into a grand-mal seizure
 
2013-11-20 11:25:13 AM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


Fail. No crosses. There would be lots and lots of crosses.
 
2013-11-20 11:25:20 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I think  FarkedOver may be conflating "liberal" with "centrist democrat"


I think you are confusing liberal with radical.
 
2013-11-20 11:25:30 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think conservatives support change?

LOL

No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.


The tea party are also radicals, though. Liberal and conservative kind of helps point to which end of the spectrum they're on.

At the very least, conservatives were the ones that *Actively opposed* Civil Rights. Because it sure as fark wasn't the LIBERALS screeching "RACE MIXING IS COOOMUUUNISSSSM". Though, in actuality, I suppose those folks might have *Also* been radicals....
 
2013-11-20 11:26:02 AM  

Ned Stark: nunyadang: qorkfiend: nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?

You must be new here.

I have been here long enough to know that many farkers have strong opinions, but many also have poor reading comprehension, or just read a misleading headline and start commenting

Left Wing Derp, or Right Wing Derp is still Derp people.

Left wing derp is derp. Right wing derp is national policy.


You have been blinded by the derp.

Derp is Derp yo.
 
2013-11-20 11:26:38 AM  

mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.   Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]


It's hard to tell who a male politician is from a picture of him unless that picture has him sucking a dick. So to answer your question, no, I do not.
 
2013-11-20 11:28:23 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.

Whom are, by and large...liberal anti-capitalists like communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. Right?

There now that makes much more sense.


You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.
 
Bf+
2013-11-20 11:28:27 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.

You think conservatives support change?

LOL

This is a problem in this country.  You can only be seen as a conservative or a liberal.  Fark that shiat.



[NathanFillionSpeechlessAnimated.gif]
 
2013-11-20 11:28:50 AM  

FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.


"Conservatism" is nothing but be pissed off at made-up shiat politics.
 
2013-11-20 11:28:53 AM  

Serious Black: mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.   Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]

It's hard to tell who a male politician is from a picture of him unless that picture has him sucking a dick. So to answer your question, no, I do not.


He's the previous mayor of Toronto which I assume had equal coverage on CNN as the current mayor.  Media likes drama, conflict, and a train wreck.  That is why Obamacare is Obama's Katrina x Benghazi.
 
2013-11-20 11:29:02 AM  

mrshowrules: m


The sign behind him leads me to guess:
Former mayor of Toronto?
 
2013-11-20 11:30:59 AM  
Subby, not only are Americans getting insured, they're getting health care while not being separated from their cash at alarming rates.

Much to the dismay of Republicans and shareholders in insurance companies.
 
2013-11-20 11:31:43 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.


Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?
 
2013-11-20 11:33:53 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.

Whom are, by and large...liberal anti-capitalists like communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. Right?

There now that makes much more sense.

You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.


There were those elements in the Civil Rights movement but it worked due to working within the system, passive resistance, and engaging the public.

Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.
 
2013-11-20 11:36:02 AM  

mrshowrules: cameroncrazy1984: I think  FarkedOver may be conflating "liberal" with "centrist democrat"

If a Conservative was ever confronted with an actual Liberal, they might shiat their pants and go into a grand-mal seizure


But I was told that a Liberal is anyone who is not a Tea Party Republican.
 
2013-11-20 11:36:10 AM  

Felgraf: mrshowrules: m

The sign behind him leads me to guess:
Former mayor of Toronto?


Yes.  I am trying to show that news is more entertainment than anything else.  When CNN news focuses on Rob Ford more than even Canadian National news does, you have to ask yourselves where their priorities are.
 
2013-11-20 11:36:55 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?


Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
2013-11-20 11:38:48 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think conservatives support change?

LOL

No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.


No true liberal, then?
 
2013-11-20 11:39:23 AM  

Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.


Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"
 
2013-11-20 11:39:56 AM  

mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.  Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]


I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that it's Tornto's Deputy Mayor, Norm Kelly (no, I don't know what Norm Kelly looks like... so I'm probably wrong)
 
2013-11-20 11:40:26 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, not only are Americans getting insured, they're getting health care while not being separated from their cash at alarming rates.

Much to the dismay of Republicans and shareholders in insurance companies.


That is why they fight so much. It's hard to take this away once people like it. Everyone has or knows a granny.

I see some farkers here cheer the fact that it is difficult to get everyone health care and these farkers hope that people remain uninsured.

Personally I had a friend die recently. He was on his early 60s, still working and not able to afford health care. His widow said he was waiting to get into the exchanges due to his heart condition. This story touched me personally, so no, I am not going to give an inch to people who are extatic that the ACA is having problems and who hope it goes away lest people without means get care.
 
2013-11-20 11:41:20 AM  

InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.


Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.
 
2013-11-20 11:42:25 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.
 
2013-11-20 11:42:26 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?


Well, if you want to do it in chronological order, you can start with this guy:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-20 11:42:49 AM  

llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.


Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.
 
2013-11-20 11:43:15 AM  

mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.  Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]


When I hover over the picture it says David Miller pointing at paper.  So I will make an educated guess that his name is David Miller.

I'm going with David Miller
 
2013-11-20 11:43:16 AM  

Rhino_man: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?

Well, if you want to do it in chronological order, you can start with this guy:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1013]


A slave owner? Nah, I won't give him credit for any sort of civil rights change.
 
2013-11-20 11:43:25 AM  

Rhino_man: mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.  Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that it's Tornto's Deputy Mayor, Norm Kelly (no, I don't know what Norm Kelly looks like... so I'm probably wrong)


thetyee.cachefly.net

He's this guy's predecessor before CNN became interested in Toronto City politics.
 
2013-11-20 11:43:42 AM  

coyo: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, not only are Americans getting insured, they're getting health care while not being separated from their cash at alarming rates.

Much to the dismay of Republicans and shareholders in insurance companies.

That is why they fight so much. It's hard to take this away once people like it. Everyone has or knows a granny.

I see some farkers here cheer the fact that it is difficult to get everyone health care and these farkers hope that people remain uninsured.

Personally I had a friend die recently. He was on his early 60s, still working and not able to afford health care. His widow said he was waiting to get into the exchanges due to his heart condition. This story touched me personally, so no, I am not going to give an inch to people who are extatic that the ACA is having problems and who hope it goes away lest people without means get care.


You got it. The plans that offered no care for a lower premium are now going away. And so are the insurance profits from those plans that forced people to go to emergency rooms for medical care.

Plus competition. Which is a hated word among those greedy bastards.
 
2013-11-20 11:44:39 AM  
FTFAMany of them live in Republican-controlled states, which haven't set up their own online exchanges and which refused the Obama Administration's offer to meet most of the costs of expanding Medicaid....As a result, the take-up has been dismal. In Texas, for example, only about three thousand people have signed up for new individual plans, and the state isn't expanding Medicaid.

Fun Fact: Texas IS  shuffling its high risk pool onto the exchanges, just as right-wingers are trying to argue such state-based pools are the way to replace the ACA.
 
2013-11-20 11:44:54 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!


I guess I see that and translate it to "Yay, people are going to suffer and die. I have mine and my team is going to win!"
 
2013-11-20 11:45:27 AM  

Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.


I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?
 
2013-11-20 11:46:11 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?

Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


This also brings me back to my point of liberalism being feel good politics.  You vote on something that is right and just, great. In actuality you really didn't do all that farking much other than say you want change.
 
2013-11-20 11:46:56 AM  

BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.


I believe the exact quote is: "Don't worry about purging fark of all these nate silver fellatio threads after Romney wins and his credibility is ruined. I already have screenprints ready to go."

I believe it's that because I have it on a screenprint.
 
2013-11-20 11:48:05 AM  

llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.


That's a bingo!
 
2013-11-20 11:48:17 AM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?

Well, if you want to do it in chronological order, you can start with this guy:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1013]

A slave owner? Nah, I won't give him credit for any sort of civil rights change.


He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place.  The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.
 
2013-11-20 11:48:43 AM  
FarkedOver:
This also brings me back to my point of liberalism being feel good politics.  You vote on something that is right and just, great. In actuality you really didn't do all that farking much other than say you want change.

So vote slavery.
 
Bf+
2013-11-20 11:49:22 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?

Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This also brings me back to my point of liberalism being feel good politics.  You vote on something that is right and just, great. In actuality you really didn't do all that farking much other than say you want change.



You know, words mean things, despite your objection.
 
2013-11-20 11:50:01 AM  
People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."
 
2013-11-20 11:50:25 AM  

FarkedOver: Voting is what made civil rights possible


Do you think that anarchists vote? How about communists? Who do they vote for? Were there any communists in congress in 1964? How about anarchists? How about Black Panthers?
 
2013-11-20 11:50:35 AM  

Rhino_man: He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.


He pushed for a bill of rights for rich white men.  Great, what a visionary and a real big departure from the Magna Carta.  You want someone that really wanted change? Check out this mofo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babeuf
 
2013-11-20 11:50:54 AM  

tbeatty: People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."


Wanna guess how I know you have no idea what Obamacare is?
 
2013-11-20 11:51:01 AM  

tbeatty: People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."


What do you think Obamacare IS exactly?
 
2013-11-20 11:51:44 AM  

FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.


Actually it was. Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democratic members of Congress united and overcame opposition from Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats. The deciding factor was geography, not party affiliation. At that time you still had a species later known as "Rockafeller Republicans". Today they are all but dead.
 
2013-11-20 11:52:43 AM  

Somacandra: FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.

Actually it was. Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democratic members of Congress united and overcame opposition from Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats. The deciding factor was geography, not party affiliation. At that time you still had a species later known as "Rockafeller Republicans". Today they are all but dead.


But they can't be true. I was told both sides are bad, you see.
 
2013-11-20 11:52:44 AM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.

He pushed for a bill of rights for rich white men.  Great, what a visionary and a real big departure from the Magna Carta.  You want someone that really wanted change? Check out this mofo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babeuf


That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights  upon you.  Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.
 
2013-11-20 11:52:57 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Voting is what made civil rights possible

Do you think that anarchists vote? How about communists? Who do they vote for? Were there any communists in congress in 1964? How about anarchists? How about Black Panthers?


Anarchists do not typically vote in capitalist elections.  Communists would vote if there was a communist or socialist running.  The black panther party probably didn't vote but did guard polling places to ensure people of color could vote.  It's this kind of action that is paramount to any vote some representative made or did not make regarding civil rights.
 
2013-11-20 11:53:42 AM  

llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?


I'll give them credit because they're at least not actively attempting to slash the bandwagon's tires.
 
2013-11-20 11:53:48 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.


Did anybody say it was supposed to?
 
2013-11-20 11:54:06 AM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Voting is what made civil rights possible

Do you think that anarchists vote? How about communists? Who do they vote for? Were there any communists in congress in 1964? How about anarchists? How about Black Panthers?

Anarchists do not typically vote in capitalist elections.  Communists would vote if there was a communist or socialist running.  The black panther party probably didn't vote but did guard polling places to ensure people of color could vote.  It's this kind of action that is paramount to any vote some representative made or did not make regarding civil rights.


So what you're saying is that no, anarchists, communists and socialists did not have anything to do with civil rights.
 
2013-11-20 11:54:25 AM  

Rhino_man: That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights upon you. Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.


I think Jefferson would be the first say he didn't bestow shiat on anyone and that I was born free (offer not applicable to people of color).
 
2013-11-20 11:54:51 AM  

tbeatty: So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.


The ACA isn't something you "have." Most people in CA as well as nationwide already get insurance from their employers as part of their benefits package. Since the requirement is to have coverage, most people fulfill the requirements without doing anything. But you knew that already, I'm sure.
 
2013-11-20 11:55:12 AM  

Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?


So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.
 
2013-11-20 11:56:06 AM  

FarkedOver: Communists would vote if there was a communist or socialist running.  The black panther party probably didn't vote but did guard polling places to ensure people of color could vote.


I notice you don't have any actual evidence to support this mere conjecture.
 
2013-11-20 11:56:19 AM  

llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?


Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.
 
2013-11-20 11:56:24 AM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


Which stands in stark contrast to conservatives, who actively opposed civil rights, often to the point of state-sanctioned violence.
 
2013-11-20 11:57:17 AM  

Rhino_man: He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place.  The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.


Yes, Jefferson believe that all men were created equal .... except for women, slaves, Native Americans, and non land owning males.    He believed in limiting the powers of federal government, until he became President and worked tirelessly to expand federal powers.   He was a huge fan of the French Revolution and spent no small amount of time waxing poetic about how the European aristrocracy are going to have to learn how to divide up the spoils with the lower classes, but he certainly never concerned himself much with divvying up the spoils of Montecello (not that there were much spoils to divide up after his frivolous spending habits drove it into bankruptcy)  .

Jefferson was massive hypocritical blowhard who generally only  loved the sound of his own voice and his own sense of self importance.    He believed in almost anything and everything, and took every stance on all issues depending where his self interests laid on a particular day.
 
2013-11-20 11:57:32 AM  

FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.

Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"


A liberal did. You might have heard of MLK.
 
2013-11-20 11:57:57 AM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


Are you gonna tell me that MLK was a Communist?

Please don't perpetuate that crap.
 
2013-11-20 11:59:03 AM  

Somacandra: I notice you don't have any actual evidence to support this mere conjecture.


Ask one of the many anarchists here if they participate in capitalist elections.  The CPUSA does actively endorse and support democrats (to their detriment), but most Marxist organization will not vote for anyone but a socialist and even that is iffy because of all the sectarianism among socialist.  I'm just assuming the Black Panther Party didn't actively participate in elections as they were a revolutionary Maoist organization.
 
2013-11-20 11:59:39 AM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


Wait, I didn't realize civil rights was an all-or-nothing proposition?
 
2013-11-20 11:59:56 AM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


Since every single each liberal didn't singlehandledy free all the slaves, both sides are bad and liberals have to admit they are the real racists and can never be for equality.
 
2013-11-20 12:00:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: A liberal did. You might have heard of MLK.


His kid was a bit of a dreamer, too.
 
2013-11-20 12:00:34 PM  
people are getting insured

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-11-20 12:01:09 PM  

FarkedOver: Somacandra: I notice you don't have any actual evidence to support this mere conjecture.

Ask one of the many anarchists here if they participate in capitalist elections.  The CPUSA does actively endorse and support democrats (to their detriment), but most Marxist organization will not vote for anyone but a socialist and even that is iffy because of all the sectarianism among socialist.  I'm just assuming the Black Panther Party didn't actively participate in elections as they were a revolutionary Maoist organization.


And yet you still posit that they had more to do with civil rights than liberals in government. Because you are lazy and hold beliefs that will not change despite all available evidence.
 
2013-11-20 12:01:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.

Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"

A liberal did. You might have heard of MLK.


Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.
 
2013-11-20 12:02:16 PM  

Esc7: FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.

Since every single each liberal didn't singlehandledy free all the slaves, both sides are bad and liberals have to admit they are the real racists and can never be for equality.


And/or apparently that's the same as "doing nothing." Somehow.
 
2013-11-20 12:03:00 PM  

FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.


Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.
 
2013-11-20 12:03:30 PM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


That is not at all what I said, dingus. Just because a new statute doesn't do everything does not automatically exclude that it does nothing. Legal gains are tremendously important. Just look at what has happened since SCOTUS voided the preclearance formula to the Voting Rights Act.
 
2013-11-20 12:03:59 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights upon you. Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.

I think Jefferson would be the first say he didn't bestow shiat on anyone and that I was born free (offer not applicable to people of color).


Seriously?  You go into semantics rather than acknowledging that somebody you don't like had a hand in implementing a law that guarantees your rights?
 
2013-11-20 12:04:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.

Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.


Yeah he was never arrested or anything like that.  Silly me.
 
2013-11-20 12:04:40 PM  

Tricky Chicken: oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.


Let me guess.  In your world the media is liberal and in the tank for all things Obama, right?
Remember in 2012 when the liberal media was skewing the polls to show a big win for Obama?  Well, Romney's landslide win sure showed them!

What else is it like in your world?  Are minorities out to get you?  Is there a war on Christmas?   Is the IRS robbing you at gunpoint?
 
2013-11-20 12:04:47 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.

Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.

Yeah he was never arrested or anything like that.  Silly me.


How does being arrested pass the civil rights act?
 
2013-11-20 12:05:02 PM  

Rhino_man: FarkedOver: Rhino_man: That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights upon you. Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.

I think Jefferson would be the first say he didn't bestow shiat on anyone and that I was born free (offer not applicable to people of color).

Seriously?  You go into semantics rather than acknowledging that somebody you don't like had a hand in implementing a law that guarantees your rights?


No, I'm just stating what he himself stated.
 
2013-11-20 12:06:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.

Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.

Yeah he was never arrested or anything like that.  Silly me.

How does being arrested pass the civil rights act?


How does passing the civil rights give you civil rights?
 
2013-11-20 12:06:03 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: FarkedOver: Rhino_man: That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights upon you. Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.

I think Jefferson would be the first say he didn't bestow shiat on anyone and that I was born free (offer not applicable to people of color).

Seriously?  You go into semantics rather than acknowledging that somebody you don't like had a hand in implementing a law that guarantees your rights?

No, I'm just stating what he himself stated.


If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?
 
2013-11-20 12:06:22 PM  

FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.  Liberals need to go to the left and start actually doing shiat instead of just griping and biatching about conservatives and the GOP.


What? What policy has the GOP ever initiated besides the Iraq war? I will tell you. It would be Eienhower's interstate highway initiative.
 
2013-11-20 12:06:45 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.

Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.

Yeah he was never arrested or anything like that.  Silly me.

How does being arrested pass the civil rights act?

How does passing the civil rights give you civil rights?


You're kidding, right? You're asking how a law guarantees civil rights?
 
2013-11-20 12:07:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?


It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.
 
2013-11-20 12:08:54 PM  

Kevin72: What? What policy has the GOP ever initiated besides the Iraq war? I will tell you. It would be Eienhower's interstate highway initiative.


Why do I give a shiat about what the GOP did or didn't do? This is not relevant.
 
2013-11-20 12:09:00 PM  

coyo: Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!

I guess I see that and translate it to "Yay, people are going to suffer and die. I have mine and my team is going to win!"


Wow, that is what you got?  I was going for more of a 'this was your law, you wanted it, you pay for it and run it.  We don't think we can afford it.'  But I've been pretty consistent with my support of single payer, so which side would that be?  Because that side isn't going to win anytime soon.  At least not until ACA gets blown up (more terrist imagery).
 
2013-11-20 12:09:19 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.


Isn't it?
 
2013-11-20 12:09:20 PM  

InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.


Sure, but it's nothing compared to the sweetness of holding a gun in your hands.
 
2013-11-20 12:09:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.

Isn't it?


No.
 
2013-11-20 12:09:56 PM  
cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.
 
2013-11-20 12:10:25 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.


I think I already know the answer to this question but it will be fun just the same....

What stands between you and bondage then if not for the same parchment?
 
2013-11-20 12:10:59 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.


No, what stands between me and bondage is a collaboration of three organizations that have a monopoly on the use of force within the lands where I live.  That organization would be the United States Government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Prince William County Government.  The way that those organizations are structured is centered around a piece of parchment, which was written largely to the standards proposed by Thomas Jefferson.
 
2013-11-20 12:11:08 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.

Isn't it?

No.


So what you're saying is that a Constitution is not necessary, at all. And nor are laws? Is that what you're saying? Because you're going against some pretty smart people when you say things like that.
 
2013-11-20 12:11:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Isn't it?


He's the exception. He could totally manage on his own if the government would just get out of his way.
 
2013-11-20 12:11:35 PM  

mrshowrules: TV's Vinnie: As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".

It is almost like the media has a bias towards a train wreck and conflict.  How can you prove that?

Here's a test.  Does any Farker know who this guy is?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330]


Is that Darryl Hammond impersonating Chris Matthews?
 
2013-11-20 12:11:45 PM  

RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.


He's no troll

He believes in what he says.

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean they are a troll
 
2013-11-20 12:11:51 PM  

RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.


How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.
 
2013-11-20 12:12:55 PM  

FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.

Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"

A liberal did. You might have heard of MLK.

Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.


Um I think you're confused here. Liberals have always acknowledged King's views on social justice and the Vietnam War. It's only been recently that conservative pundits started claiming he was one of their own based on the Dream speech.

But I'm sure moderate white voters would have rallied behind Civil Rights legislation fronted by a man who referred to them as devils.
 
2013-11-20 12:13:30 PM  

FarkedOver: Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.


What's funny is that you don't consider "voting" to be the greatest action you can take. You get to foment a revolution every 4 years. What could be a better action than that?

Or did you think that all you had to do was get arrested a few times and people would magically see it your way?
 
2013-11-20 12:13:37 PM  

Rhino_man: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.

No, what stands between me and bondage is a collaboration of three organizations that have a monopoly on the use of force within the lands where I live.  That organization would be the United States Government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Prince William County Government.  The way that those organizations are structured is centered around a piece of parchment, which was written largely to the standards proposed by Thomas Jefferson.


And Wallstreet, and church, and clubs.

You would be surprised when you step back and actually realize that there is very powerful leadership outside of the government.
 
2013-11-20 12:14:04 PM  

FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.


Thank you!

/packs up briefcase
 
2013-11-20 12:14:11 PM  

FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.


I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.
 
2013-11-20 12:14:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.


Last I heard the site is stable enough to serve about 25K users simultaneously. Much better than before, but way below what's going to be needed in the late December and late March rushes when people who want/need coverage have to actually go do it.
 
2013-11-20 12:15:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

What's funny is that you don't consider "voting" to be the greatest action you can take. You get to foment a revolution every 4 years. What could be a better action than that?

Or did you think that all you had to do was get arrested a few times and people would magically see it your way?


Yes we vote every 4 years for the lesser of two evils.  "It isn't the best system, but it's the only system we got!", right?
 
2013-11-20 12:16:24 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

What's funny is that you don't consider "voting" to be the greatest action you can take. You get to foment a revolution every 4 years. What could be a better action than that?

Or did you think that all you had to do was get arrested a few times and people would magically see it your way?

Yes we vote every 4 years for the lesser of two evils.  "It isn't the best system, but it's the only system we got!", right?


Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.
 
2013-11-20 12:16:48 PM  

Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.


That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?
 
2013-11-20 12:16:51 PM  

cman: Rhino_man: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.

No, what stands between me and bondage is a collaboration of three organizations that have a monopoly on the use of force within the lands where I live.  That organization would be the United States Government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Prince William County Government.  The way that those organizations are structured is centered around a piece of parchment, which was written largely to the standards proposed by Thomas Jefferson.

And Wallstreet, and church, and clubs.

You would be surprised when you step back and actually realize that there is very powerful leadership outside of the government.


The financial sector - which you refer to simply as "Wall Street" - was formed around the framework of laws passed by Congress, according to that piece of parchment.  Their only power is to bankrupt me, thus making me unable to continue paying the mortgage or taxes on my land, at which point I would be forcibly removed by THE GOVERNMENT.

Churches have no power over me except for their ability to enact a change in the law.  Still goes back to the government.

Clubs?  I don't even know what you're getting at here.
 
2013-11-20 12:17:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.


I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.
 
2013-11-20 12:17:33 PM  

Graffito: Tricky Chicken: oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.

Let me guess.  In your world the media is liberal and in the tank for all things Obama, right?
Remember in 2012 when the liberal media was skewing the polls to show a big win for Obama?  Well, Romney's landslide win sure showed them!

What else is it like in your world?  Are minorities out to get you?  Is there a war on Christmas?   Is the IRS robbing you at gunpoint?


Let me answer in order
1. Yes
2. No, I was prety sure he was gonna lose.
3. Fairly stable
4. Maybe a couple are, I can't be sure. But as a unified group, probably not.
5. No
6. Yes more or less. If there weren't consequences, I would'nt pay

But of course those were pissy snide questions that you weren't waiting for an answer to were you?  And of course you know my politics, and I'm clearly totally in the tank for the GOP on every issue lockstep.  I am on the talking points distro list too.
 
2013-11-20 12:17:49 PM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?


Certainly if you just occupy wall street more and don't vote, it'll stop!
 
2013-11-20 12:18:46 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.


You're not supposed to talk about that
 
2013-11-20 12:18:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?

Certainly if you just occupy wall street more and don't vote, it'll stop!


That's more of an anarchist tactic and not my thing.  I support it though.
 
2013-11-20 12:19:22 PM  

Serious Black: Garet Garrett:

 Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly....


Say Fellas, have you heard about Reinsurance Fees?
 
2013-11-20 12:19:30 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?

Certainly if you just occupy wall street more and don't vote, it'll stop!

That's more of an anarchist tactic and not my thing.  I support it though.


... so what the fark IS your "thing?"
 
2013-11-20 12:19:33 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.


The individual mandate was the Heritage Foundation's idea. Most of the rest of it was not. Are you really expecting me to concede to you a point you have not earned?
 
2013-11-20 12:20:08 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?

Certainly if you just occupy wall street more and don't vote, it'll stop!

That's more of an anarchist tactic and not my thing.  I support it though.


So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?
 
2013-11-20 12:20:16 PM  

RangerTaylor: FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.

Thank you!

/packs up briefcase


Can't even tell me why or how I am trolling and leaves.  There is some refreshing intellectual honesty there!
 
2013-11-20 12:20:59 PM  

tbeatty: People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."


Urine idiot. I have Obamacare in that I have good insurance through my employer. Obamacare is only insurance reform to help people who don't have emplyer paid healthcare to get affordable healthcare.
 
2013-11-20 12:22:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?


My point was that the kind of actions you seem to be advocating tend to have either no impact or cause detrimental changes. People don't respond well to intimidation and manipulation. People respond well when they are treated like dignified human beings and they are persuaded in a positive manner.
 
2013-11-20 12:22:10 PM  

Rhino_man: The way that those organizations are structured is centered around a piece of parchment, which was written largely to the standards proposed by Thomas Jefferson James Madison and Alexander Hamilton


FTFY
 
2013-11-20 12:22:11 PM  

InmanRoshi: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

So Republicans are going to run on stripping away privately purchased insurance from hundreds of thousands of Americas, re-implementing pre-existing condition clauses, and putting lifetime coverage caps on children with cancer?


Carrying a Bible and draped in the flag, yes.
 
2013-11-20 12:22:46 PM  
Friggin lieberal mainstream MSM media.
 
2013-11-20 12:23:46 PM  

Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"


I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?


I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.
 
2013-11-20 12:24:50 PM  

FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?
 
Ant
2013-11-20 12:24:56 PM  

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


To be replaced by single payer or a national health service.
 
2013-11-20 12:25:28 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.

He pushed for a bill of rights for rich white men.  Great, what a visionary and a real big departure from the Magna Carta.  You want someone that really wanted change? Check out this mofo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babeuf.


And how many women were in his Society of Equals?
Answer:  zero.  So much for your big, bad social revolutionary.
 
2013-11-20 12:26:39 PM  

FarkedOver: Kevin72: What? What policy has the GOP ever initiated besides the Iraq war? I will tell you. It would be Eienhower's interstate highway initiative.

Why do I give a shiat about what the GOP did or didn't do? This is not relevant.


Oh, I don't know. Maybe to do some critical analysis of facts and to process some enlightened output about improving society. Instead of barfing up some toxin you heard on the radio like liberalism is all about feelgood politics and then feeling all brainy and feelgood about repeating some platitude.
 
2013-11-20 12:26:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.

And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?


Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council.  She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!
 
2013-11-20 12:26:52 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.


What a load of bullshiat. HF has forsaken that bill for the sake of opposing Obama. Attributing the healthcare law to them is only useful for pointing out just how reactionary and stupid modern Republicans have become. Acting like Obama and Democrats don't get any credit for passing that bill into law just because "they didn't think of it first!" is childish.
 
2013-11-20 12:27:57 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.

And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?

Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists labor unions and their liberal backers in government.

More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council.  She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!


Fixed that for you.
 
2013-11-20 12:29:06 PM  

FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.


Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?
 
2013-11-20 12:29:54 PM  

un4gvn666: What a load of bullshiat. HF has forsaken that bill for the sake of opposing Obama. Attributing the healthcare law to them is only useful for pointing out just how reactionary and stupid modern Republicans have become. Acting like Obama and Democrats don't get any credit for passing that bill into law just because "they didn't think of it first!" is childish.


The is ultimatly a piece of shiat law.  Single-payer is where we need to be, not some hybrid socialist/free market solution.  Profits do not belong in the health care industry.
 
2013-11-20 12:30:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?


It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.
 
2013-11-20 12:31:16 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


Occupy was ruined by a coordinated and unconstitutional crackdown by the Feds. But thank you for playing.
 
2013-11-20 12:31:24 PM  

Rhino_man: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.

And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?

Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists labor unions and their liberal backers in government.

More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council.  She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!

Fixed that for you.


The Haymarket Affair was a bunch of liberals as are IWW members past and present.  Good to know.
 
2013-11-20 12:31:28 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?

It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.


What makes a strike legal?
 
2013-11-20 12:32:13 PM  

FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.


"Codify into laws" is not an action? How much good do those "changes" do, and how long will they last, if they're not codified in some fashion? What were the leftists fighting for, if not to get their changes codified into law?
 
2013-11-20 12:32:46 PM  

FarkedOver: un4gvn666: What a load of bullshiat. HF has forsaken that bill for the sake of opposing Obama. Attributing the healthcare law to them is only useful for pointing out just how reactionary and stupid modern Republicans have become. Acting like Obama and Democrats don't get any credit for passing that bill into law just because "they didn't think of it first!" is childish.

The is ultimatly a piece of shiat law.  Single-payer is where we need to be, not some hybrid socialist/free market solution.  Profits do not belong in the health care industry.


And as long as conservatives hold sway over our government, you wishing for it to be that way is worth a bucket of warm piss.

You know what WILL eventually get single-payer passed into law? More liberals in government.
 
2013-11-20 12:32:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?

It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.

What makes a strike legal?


The most effective strikes aren't.  They are called Wildcat strikes.  This tactic was used multiple times in the 30s.  Read the book Teamster Rebellion, it's fascinating.
 
2013-11-20 12:33:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: coyo: Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!

I guess I see that and translate it to "Yay, people are going to suffer and die. I have mine and my team is going to win!"

Wow, that is what you got?  I was going for more of a 'this was your law, you wanted it, you pay for it and run it.  We don't think we can afford it.'  But I've been pretty consistent with my support of single payer, so which side would that be?  Because that side isn't going to win anytime soon.  At least not until ACA gets blown up (more terrist imagery).


The United States has the resources; that is not a problem. We have the manpower, though as we underfund education, the knowhow could be slipping. Yes, we do need to educate far more doctors.

If you truly supported single payer, you would have suggested it and suggested how to get there. Instead you cheer and crow that people in red states are not going to get what they need to be healthy but instead the austerity regiment in those states can remain intact.

Whether or not the ACA was engineered to do so, it may force single payer in order to cover people.
 
2013-11-20 12:33:27 PM  

FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


I just want to remind you, those protests are worthless, your work place agitation is meaningless and your militant unionization is a waste of time unless the end result is getting a piece of parchment changed.  Look at all of the effort Occupy Wall Street put in.  What did they gain?  Nothing.  They gained absolutely nothing.  What about all of the civil rights protests?  Think about all of the time, effort, struggle and pain those protestors endured.  It would have all been for nothing if not for a change made on a piece of parchment.

You are ignorantly pretending you are above the politics game.  Your meaningless gestures make you feel good about yourself but do nothing to actually change or improve our society.  Great, look at how upset that guy is and his protesting.  We'll let him scream and shout and when he's done, everything will go back to the way it was.

FarkedOver:  Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.

You're welcome.
 
2013-11-20 12:33:53 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?

It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.


I'm sure striking workers that have been fired from their jobs thanks to business friendly state laws would totally agree with you. Like, totally.
 
2013-11-20 12:34:18 PM  

Ant: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

To be replaced by single payer or a national health service.


I could say that single-payer is for advanced democracies only.

Or I could that Medicare/Medicaid is already a single-payer system larger they many industrialized economies.  The only thing undermining its success is the free-market insurance system next to it.
 
2013-11-20 12:35:34 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.


Awww, did someone accidentally leave their fox-news-am-radio echo chamber and find out that Farkers like actual facts, not Republican facts you make up to make yourself feel better?

Poor little guy.
 
2013-11-20 12:35:46 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?

It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.

What makes a strike legal?

The most effective strikes aren't.  They are called Wildcat strikes.  This tactic was used multiple times in the 30s.  Read the book Teamster Rebellion, it's fascinating.


There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.
 
2013-11-20 12:35:59 PM  

un4gvn666: I'm sure striking workers that have been fired from their jobs thanks to business friendly state laws would totally agree with you. Like, totally.


You can thank liberal capitulation and compromise for the eroding of labor rights.

Please see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.
 
2013-11-20 12:36:34 PM  

InmanRoshi: sullydish.files.wordpress.com

It's pretty remarkable at how inherently awful the free market is when it comes to healthcare.


I've been informed that the other countries on that chart have no doctors because they all defected and came to the US to make millions.
 
2013-11-20 12:36:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.


Because it's bad for business and the state will send in their goons to break it up.  Kind of like FDR did.
 
2013-11-20 12:37:24 PM  

FarkedOver: lease see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.


Tell that to the air traffic controllers.

And it wasn't liberals who failed to pass the EFCA. It was the GOP. You know, Conservatives?
 
2013-11-20 12:37:44 PM  

FarkedOver: My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.


images.encyclopediadramatica.es
 
2013-11-20 12:38:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists.

Oh? Who were the agitators who passed these into law?

It's not the law that makes companies comply, it's the threat of strike. Make no mistake about it.

What makes a strike legal?

The most effective strikes aren't.  They are called Wildcat strikes.  This tactic was used multiple times in the 30s.  Read the book Teamster Rebellion, it's fascinating.

There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.


We fought a 40 year long cold war to be sure that unions and living wages were destroyed. Spent trillions and trillions and sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives so workers wouldn't have rights.

It was very important to us.
 
2013-11-20 12:38:15 PM  

FarkedOver: You can thank liberal capitulation and compromise for the eroding of labor rights.

Please see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.


Obama is not a liberal, he is a centrist.
 
2013-11-20 12:38:18 PM  

FarkedOver: Please see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.


Are we in a dictatorship? Because I didn't get that memo.
 
2013-11-20 12:38:37 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.

Because it's bad for business and the state will send in their goons to break it up.  Kind of like FDR did.


Because it's illegal, and there are legal ways and methods to effect change. How is it that you're not getting it yet?
 
2013-11-20 12:38:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: lease see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.

Tell that to the air traffic controllers.

And it wasn't liberals who failed to pass the EFCA. It was the GOP. You know, Conservatives?


The GOP is not conservative, It is radical.
 
2013-11-20 12:39:32 PM  

FarkedOver: More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council. She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!


I'm sorry, do you *live* in Seattle? Your fark profile implies you don't.

Did you donate money to her campaign?

And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.

/I am also glad she won, however.
 
2013-11-20 12:40:08 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: lease see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.

Tell that to the air traffic controllers.

And it wasn't liberals who failed to pass the EFCA. It was the GOP. You know, Conservatives?

The GOP is not conservative, It is radical.


Then they are carrying on the proud tradition of conservatives in America.
 
2013-11-20 12:40:32 PM  

Felgraf: And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.


lol
 
2013-11-20 12:42:07 PM  
Felgraf:And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.

cache.emerica.com
 
2013-11-20 12:42:41 PM  

coyo: Tricky Chicken: coyo: Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder:.

The United States has the resources; that is not a problem. We have the manpower, though as we underfund education, the knowhow could be slipping. Yes, we do need to educate far more doctors.

If you truly supported single payer, you would have suggested it and suggested how to get there. Instead you cheer and crow that people in red states are not going to get what they need to be healthy but instead the austerity regiment in those states can remain intact.

Whether or not the ACA was engineered to do so, it may force single payer in order to cover people.


ACA is now law and will preclude single payer until it fails.  ACA could be fixed and if it is, we will be saddled with a bloated inefficient beaurocracy that will cost us dearly and will never be equitable.  We need it to fail and to fail in a huge flaming mess.  Unfortunately, since the ACA is an entirely Democrat screw up, the republicans will replace it with the same old crap we used to have.
 
2013-11-20 12:43:08 PM  

FarkedOver: un4gvn666: I'm sure striking workers that have been fired from their jobs thanks to business friendly state laws would totally agree with you. Like, totally.

You can thank liberal capitulation and compromise for the eroding of labor rights.

Please see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.


For who? Citation needed.
 
2013-11-20 12:43:43 PM  

FarkedOver: More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council. She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!


What better way to celebrate losing your job than getting yourself arrested.  That's real change.
 
2013-11-20 12:43:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.

Because it's bad for business and the state will send in their goons to break it up.  Kind of like FDR did.

Because it's illegal, and there are legal ways and methods to effect change. How is it that you're not getting it yet?


It's illegal because it was effective.
 
2013-11-20 12:46:02 PM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


Like a good post-apocalyptic video game?
 
2013-11-20 12:46:11 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm a Marxist.


1) Any chance you could link us to a single source for all your definitions of liberal, Democrat, socialist, communist and Marxist?

2) Are you under 20 years of age?
 
2013-11-20 12:47:00 PM  

Felgraf: I'm sorry, do you *live* in Seattle? Your fark profile implies you don't.


You understand that Marxism is an international movement.

Did you donate money to her campaign?

Yes.

And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.

I believe in laws and government.  I just would prefer we had laws that were pro-worker, not pro-business.  I would prefer a proletarian government and not a bourgeoisie government.  The laws are written and enforced by a class with a vested interest in keeping working people down.  When the laws are written and enforced by the proletarian then I will be on your side and how you all view the laws.

/I am also glad she won, however.

Cool.
 
2013-11-20 12:48:50 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: lease see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.

Tell that to the air traffic controllers.

And it wasn't liberals who failed to pass the EFCA. It was the GOP. You know, Conservatives?

The GOP is not conservative, It is radical.


The GOP's not radical for the 1850s. It's neo-confederate all the way. Just that the neo-slavery will be Walmart style wageslavery. Let's conserve our 1850s southern way of life.
 
2013-11-20 12:51:37 PM  

FarkedOver: Felgraf: I'm sorry, do you *live* in Seattle? Your fark profile implies you don't.

You understand that Marxism is an international movement.

Did you donate money to her campaign?

Yes.

And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.

I believe in laws and government.  I just would prefer we had laws that were pro-worker, not pro-business.  I would prefer a proletarian government and not a bourgeoisie government.  The laws are written and enforced by a class with a vested interest in keeping working people down.  When the laws are written and enforced by the proletarian then I will be on your side and how you all view the laws.

/I am also glad she won, however.

Cool.


They want laws that are pro-business. You want laws that are pro-workers. Cant we just settle on laws that are pro-science?
 
2013-11-20 12:56:27 PM  

tbeatty: People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."


This is what conservatards actually believe.
 
2013-11-20 01:02:06 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: lease see the Employee Free Choice Act that Obama "promised" to pass.  Never happened.  Illegal strikes are the way to go any way, the tactic has worked time and time again.

Tell that to the air traffic controllers.

And it wasn't liberals who failed to pass the EFCA. It was the GOP. You know, Conservatives?

The GOP is not conservative, It is radical.


The two aren't mutually exclusive. "Radical" in a political context usually means that you want sweeping changes and are willing to utilize what others might consider some fairly extreme tactics; this stands in opposition to "moderate", where you want incremental changes and are mostly willing to work within the existing system. You could apply either "radical" or "moderate" to anyone on the political spectrum, though I suppose "Radical Centrist" might be a bit misleading.
 
2013-11-20 01:04:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.


Spoken by someone who thinks waving the flag and saying "GOD BLESS AMERICA~!" will fix all of our nation's problems.
 
2013-11-20 01:04:46 PM  
So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?
 
2013-11-20 01:06:28 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.

You're not supposed to talk about that


You mean like Fight Club?
 
2013-11-20 01:07:26 PM  
www.learnnc.org

pictures.replayphotos.com
Look everyone I'm a Lib!!
 
2013-11-20 01:08:12 PM  

jltthorson: UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]

You mean like Democrat Detroit now.


It always makes me lol that conservatives have exactly two examples of poor liberal management: Detroit, and Chicago. They conveniently leave off every single other major city in the US, almost all of which are run by Democrats, and most of which are doing fine, and certainly better than most conservative areas.
 
2013-11-20 01:09:32 PM  
You understand that Marxism is an international movement.
Yes. So are a lot of organizations that call themselves 'liberal'.   Or, at least, more wide-spread than the local level.

For instance, the pastor at the church I grew up in (In Chapel Hill, North Carolina. UCC is... a very left-wing church). Who is one of those who's been arrested protesting the *insanity* that's going on in the NC state legislature. Who proudly calls herself a liberal.

Who is, apparently, merely engaging in 'feel good' politics.
 
2013-11-20 01:10:04 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.


Thanksgiving deals and Black Friday and Cyber Monday will dominate the news cycle.

What's the over/under on how many people get trampled when Wal-mart or other stores open their doors on Thanksgiving?
 
2013-11-20 01:13:00 PM  

FarkedOver: This also brings me back to my point of liberalism being feel good politics.  You vote on something that is right and just, great. In actuality you really didn't do all that farking much other than say you want change.


You mean other than codifying into law and thus, making it a violation of said law if not followed?

Maybe you need to look at this before you answer first, k? Hey, I'm just a bill.
 
2013-11-20 01:13:39 PM  

meat0918: Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.

Thanksgiving deals and Black Friday and Cyber Monday will dominate the news cycle.

What's the over/under on how many people get trampled when Wal-mart or other stores open their doors on Thanksgiving?


Bonus points if they blame it on Benghazicare.
 
2013-11-20 01:14:14 PM  

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.


Tell that to Nelson Mandela.
 
2013-11-20 01:16:37 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


FWIW, I highly recommend Rudolf Rocker's Nationalism and Culture. In the first chapter he demolishes the quasi-religious Marxist belief in economics as the sole driver of history. A quick tour of history shows just how easy falsifiable that axiom is. I recommend giving it a read if you insist on calling yourself a Marxist in the 21st century.
 
2013-11-20 01:17:21 PM  

Rwa2play: Spoken by someone who thinks waving the flag and saying "GOD BLESS AMERICA~!" will fix all of our nation's problems.


Here's a guy that didn't read the thread.
 
2013-11-20 01:18:17 PM  
I just want to say. I spent most of the 1990s teaching English in Taiwan and Japan. I got fabulous national socialized healthcare in both countries. Both countries are unabashedly capitalist and properous and OMG healthy in spite of socialized medicine.
 
2013-11-20 01:19:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement,


So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"?  Is that what you're insinuating here?

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Spoken by someone who thinks waving the flag and saying "GOD BLESS AMERICA~!" will fix all of our nation's problems.

Here's a guy that didn't read the thread.


Evasion and projection noted.
 
2013-11-20 01:23:58 PM  

Rwa2play: So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"? Is that what you're insinuating here?


You might want to read the thread. FarkedOver deviates from the script you're following.
 
2013-11-20 01:24:00 PM  

Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement,

So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"?  Is that what you're insinuating here?

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Spoken by someone who thinks waving the flag and saying "GOD BLESS AMERICA~!" will fix all of our nation's problems.

Here's a guy that didn't read the thread.

Evasion and projection noted.


I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS
 
2013-11-20 01:25:06 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Rwa2play: So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"? Is that what you're insinuating here?

You might want to read the thread. FarkedOver deviates from the script you're following.


Nah, I'm just enjoying his feeble attempts to try and sugarcoat one side of the argument while demonizing the other.
 
2013-11-20 01:25:11 PM  

DeArmondVI: FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.

FWIW, I highly recommend Rudolf Rocker's Nationalism and Culture. In the first chapter he demolishes the quasi-religious Marxist belief in economics as the sole driver of history. A quick tour of history shows just how easy falsifiable that axiom is. I recommend giving it a read if you insist on calling yourself a Marxist in the 21st century.


He's an anarcho-syndicalist, of course he has an axe to grind with Marx.  Though I do love reading anarchists positions on Marx.
 
2013-11-20 01:26:00 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS


Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart
 
2013-11-20 01:29:24 PM  

Rwa2play: FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS

Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart


Interesting take you have there.
 
2013-11-20 01:33:15 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS

Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart

Interesting take you have there.


If it makes you feel any better many Liberals see anyone who doesn't believe what they do as Conservative
 
2013-11-20 01:33:28 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS

Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart

Interesting take you have there.


Let's just say I have a pretty low tolerance for ideologies that fail to take human nature into account.  Libertarianism is one ideology I have no farking time for nor do I care for their arguments.
 
2013-11-20 01:47:18 PM  
I pay $900 a month to cover my wife and daughter through my work plan. On a lark, I had my wife check out healthcare.gov just to see the options. Basically they could sign up for the PLATINUM plan with 0 deductibles for $500/month. My current plan has huge deductibles to go with the huge premiums. Needless to say, we will be switching them over ASAP.

So....

Thanks, Obama
 
2013-11-20 01:52:57 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I pay $900 a month to cover my wife and daughter through my work plan. On a lark, I had my wife check out healthcare.gov just to see the options. Basically they could sign up for the PLATINUM plan with 0 deductibles for $500/month. My current plan has huge deductibles to go with the huge premiums. Needless to say, we will be switching them over ASAP.

So....

Thanks, Obama


Off topic, but do you still hang out with Gene Massethski?
 
2013-11-20 01:54:23 PM  

Rwa2play: Let's just say I have a pretty low tolerance for ideologies that fail to take human nature into account. Libertarianism is one ideology I have no farking time for nor do I care for their arguments.


Depends on what you define as human nature and which each respective ideology says about it.....
 
2013-11-20 01:55:06 PM  

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


That's not too far from what Pioneer Square looks like today.  Sure, the scenery is spiffier today, but the foreground is pretty spot on.
 
2013-11-20 01:58:53 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS

Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart

Interesting take you have there.

If it makes you feel any better many Liberals see anyone who doesn't believe what they do as Conservative


I know.  I've been called a Fark IndependentTM more times than I can remember.
 
2013-11-20 01:59:18 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Let's just say I have a pretty low tolerance for ideologies that fail to take human nature into account. Libertarianism is one ideology I have no farking time for nor do I care for their arguments.

Depends on what you define as human nature and which each respective ideology says about it.....


Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature.  It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.
 
2013-11-20 02:03:13 PM  

skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?


No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.
 
2013-11-20 02:12:30 PM  

Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.


I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).
 
2013-11-20 02:13:27 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.


Are you trying for a sucker bet because there is no such thing officially known as "Obamacare" so it's already not-alive?
 
2013-11-20 02:19:07 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Are you trying for a sucker bet because there is no such thing officially known as "Obamacare" so it's already not-alive?


Great.  Zombie health care.

www.theblaze.com

Thanks ZOmbama.
 
2013-11-20 02:19:30 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).


/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)
 
2013-11-20 02:20:04 PM  

Garet Garrett: Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).


While we haven't selected a plan yet (narrowed it down to eight), my son (age 26 and healthy) has established an account, and we expect to select the plan in the next week.  We expect to save around $250 a month (not including subsidy) over his current COBRA.  Am currently working on making sure every twenty something kid he knows that doesn't have insurance knows they need to get moving on it.  And, no, not every 22-year-old is covered by their parents' insurance (thanks ACA!).  Kind of depends upon the family situation.
 
2013-11-20 02:21:35 PM  
I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.  They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.  Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month.

My employees get paid well over the median income in the area, work indoors in a clean well lit and temperature controlled environment.  They have excellent benefits and I'm a very easy going boss. As long as a request doesn't hurt my productivity I'm happy to grant it and if there is a good reason I'll take a hit in productivity to help them out because happy workers are productive workers and I'm a human being with a heart.  I work well over 40 hours a week and most of the extra time is making up for time lost dealing with stupid complaints and problems created by these people.  They are good honest people and most of them are hard workers, the problem is that even the best person in the world can turn into a complete asshole where there are zero repercussions for their actions.  The union has more money to take grievances to arbitration than the company due to the fact that their union represents huge numbers of employees across many industries so there basically are no repercussions short of the plant closing up and moving to china once it becomes too expensive to operate in North America.
 
2013-11-20 02:22:05 PM  

FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.


Strawman much?

Pray tell us what else do you know about "liberals?"
 
2013-11-20 02:23:19 PM  

Egoy3k: The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.


Hurr unions bad, unorganized labor GOOD.
\
 
2013-11-20 02:24:08 PM  

Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).

/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)


It's pseudo-science more or less.  They attempt to apply it to economics for the most part and in doing so make some pretty vile judgements on different races.

Ahhh the austrian school of economics a bunch of proto-fascists
 
2013-11-20 02:26:02 PM  
Insurance is theft.
 
2013-11-20 02:27:02 PM  

whidbey: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Strawman much?

Pray tell us what else do you know about "liberals?"


Sure.

notthesingularity.com
"A liberal is someone who leaves the room when a fight breaks out."

--Big Bill Haywood, IWW
 
2013-11-20 02:28:54 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).

/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)

It's pseudo-science more or less.  They attempt to apply it to economics for the most part and in doing so make some pretty vile judgements on different races.

Ahhh the austrian school of economics a bunch of proto-fascists


It absolutely is pseudo-science, it also happens to be pseudo-science in the same spirit as fusing dogmatic belief in economic determinism with the Hegelian dialectic to predict the end of history.
 
2013-11-20 02:29:42 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).

/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)

It's pseudo-science more or less.


Ah yes, I understand that level of junk science quite well.

They attempt to apply it to economics for the most part and in doing so make some pretty vile judgements on different races.

Ahhh the austrian school of economics a bunch of proto-fascists


My apologies for the earlier outburst.  Have you favorited as "A cool Marxist"
 
2013-11-20 02:29:48 PM  

Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....


Most "socially liberal" people are pro-union. Maybe you meant to use some other words?
 
2013-11-20 02:30:32 PM  

Egoy3k: The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker. They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.


Average union worker is 20 something white and college educated?

Well, 1 out of 3 isn't bad I suppose.  I'm guessing "white" might be correct.

Oops   Looks like 0 out of 3.

I am sure I will take your infromed opinion with the degree of gravity it so obviously deserves.
 
2013-11-20 02:31:00 PM  

Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).

/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)

It's pseudo-science more or less.

Ah yes, I understand that level of junk science quite well.

They attempt to apply it to economics for the most part and in doing so make some pretty vile judgements on different races.

Ahhh the austrian school of economics a bunch of proto-fascists

My apologies for the earlier outburst.  Have you favorited as "A cool Marxist"


I have him tagged as "dirty filthy red son of a biatch Marxist. ". His words, not mine.
 
2013-11-20 02:32:01 PM  

Evil High Priest: Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

Most "socially liberal" people are pro-union. Maybe you meant to use some other words?


I think those words were:  "I like to get high"
 
2013-11-20 02:32:13 PM  

Evil High Priest: I have him tagged as "dirty filthy red son of a biatch Marxist. ". His words, not mine.


I stand by that statement.
 
2013-11-20 02:32:16 PM  

DeArmondVI: It absolutely is pseudo-science, it also happens to be pseudo-science in the same spirit as fusing dogmatic belief in economic determinism with the Hegelian dialectic to predict the end of history.


Or Eugenics?

Evil High Priest: Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

Most "socially liberal" people are pro-union. Maybe you meant to use some other words?


I'm as pro-union as anyone; but...crap some unions are making it hard for people to defend them without some level of transparency.
 
2013-11-20 02:34:24 PM  

InmanRoshi: Skleenar: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Your premise is impossible because free market.  FREEE MARKET!!

[www1.sulekha.com image 413x479]

 [sullydish.files.wordpress.com image 580x446]

It's pretty remarkable at how inherently awful the free market is when it comes to healthcare.


What makes you think there is anything like a free market in health care or insurance in the US?
 
2013-11-20 02:34:41 PM  

jltthorson: You mean like Democrat Detroit now.


Detroit has been run under a Consent Decree writen and implemented by the republican govenor for about 4 years now and a manager hand selected by the republican govenor.  Detroit's financial situation is 100% the result of republican governance.
 
2013-11-20 02:35:16 PM  

Evil High Priest: I have him tagged as "dirty filthy red son of a biatch Marxist. ". His words, not mine.


FarkedOver: I stand by that statement.


XD

Well, in the words of St. Carlin "At least he's honest."
 
2013-11-20 02:36:43 PM  

Rwa2play: DeArmondVI: It absolutely is pseudo-science, it also happens to be pseudo-science in the same spirit as fusing dogmatic belief in economic determinism with the Hegelian dialectic to predict the end of history.

Or Eugenics?

Evil High Priest: Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

Most "socially liberal" people are pro-union. Maybe you meant to use some other words?

I'm as pro-union as anyone; but...crap some unions are making it hard for people to defend them without some level of transparency.


Modern unions are sad husks of what the labor movement used to be before they were essentially demolished in the 1930s. A great read on that history would be The Fall of the House of Labor by David Montgomery.
 
2013-11-20 02:36:57 PM  

Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.  They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.  Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month.

My employees get paid well over the median income in the area, work indoors in a clean well lit and temperature controlled environment.  They have excellent benefits and I'm a very easy going boss. As long as a request doesn't hurt my productivity I'm happy to grant it and if there is a good reason I'll take a hit in productivity to help them out because happy workers are productive workers and I'm a human being with a heart.  I work well over 40 hours a week and most of the extra time is making up for time lost dealing with stupid complaints and problems created by these people.  They are good honest people and most of them are hard workers, the problem is that even the best person in the world can turn into a complete asshole where there are zero repercussions for their actions.  The union has more money to take grievances to arbitration than the company due to the fact that their union represents huge numbers of employees across many industries so there basically are no repercussions short of the plant closing up and moving to china once it becomes too expensive to operate in North America.


What is insane about communism?  Anarchists, socialists at the end of the day want full communism.  What is it about communism that is truly insane?
 
2013-11-20 02:38:34 PM  

Skleenar: Egoy3k: The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker. They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.

Average union worker is 20 something white and college educated?

Well, 1 out of 3 isn't bad I suppose.  I'm guessing "white" might be correct.

Oops   Looks like 0 out of 3.

I am sure I will take your infromed opinion with the degree of gravity it so obviously deserves.


No the people lauding unions are usually naive white 20 somthings.

Skleenar: I think those words were:  "I like to get high"


I like to get high, I don't care if two dudes or two ladies like to have sex with each other, I'm an atheist, I believe in socialized medicine, I care about the environment etc etc etc
 
2013-11-20 02:39:15 PM  

Muta: jltthorson: You mean like Democrat Detroit now.

Detroit has been run under a Consent Decree writen and implemented by the republican govenor for about 4 years now and a manager hand selected by the republican govenor.  Detroit's financial situation is 100% the result of republican governance.


You are forgetting the ironclad law of American Partisan Culpability.  Good conditions are the direct result of the current GOP government or the legacy of the GOP government immediately preceding the current Democratic government.  Bad conditions are the direct result of the current Democratic government or the legacy of the Democratic government immediately preceding the current GOP government.

ALWAYS.
 
2013-11-20 02:41:17 PM  

Egoy3k: No the people lauding unions are usually naive white 20 somthings.


Then why did you follow that statement with this:
" Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month. "

It sure seems to imply that you were referring to union members, not people who laud union members.
 
2013-11-20 02:41:30 PM  

FarkedOver: What is insane about communism?  Anarchists, socialists at the end of the day want full communism.  What is it about communism that is truly insane?


The part where we completely protect workers or people in general from the economic consequences of their actions.
 
2013-11-20 02:42:19 PM  

Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane.... The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.  They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.  Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month. My employees get paid well over the median income in the area, work indoors in a clean well lit and temperature controlled environment.  They have excellent benefits and I'm a very easy going boss. As long as a request doesn't hurt my productivity I'm happy to grant it and if there is a good reason I'll take a hit in productivity to help them out because happy workers are productive workers and I'm a human being with a heart.  I work well over 40 hours a week and most of the extra time is making up for time lost dealing with stupid complaints and problems created by these people.  They are good honest people and most of them are hard workers, the problem is that even the best person in the world can turn into a complete asshole where there are zero repercussions for their actions.  The union has more money to take grievances to arbitration than the company due to the fact that their union represents huge numbers of employees across many industries so there basically are no repercussions short of the plant closing up and moving to china once it becomes too expensive to operate in North America.


The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.
 
2013-11-20 02:43:24 PM  

Egoy3k: FarkedOver: What is insane about communism?  Anarchists, socialists at the end of the day want full communism.  What is it about communism that is truly insane?

The part where we completely protect workers or people in general from the economic consequences of their actions.


So as it is now, corporations are protected from their own malfeasance and workers are subject to the consequences of a business's actions and their own.

So it is socialism for companies and capitalism for the workers.  Interesting.
 
2013-11-20 02:44:34 PM  

Skleenar: Egoy3k: No the people lauding unions are usually naive white 20 somthings.

Then why did you follow that statement with this:
" Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month. "

It sure seems to imply that you were referring to union members, not people who laud union members.


Look i know i could have worded that a bit better but do you honestly not understand that paragraph or are you just being a complete farkwit?
 
2013-11-20 02:45:34 PM  
 
2013-11-20 02:47:36 PM  

Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.  They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.  Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month.

My employees get paid well over the median income in the area, work indoors in a clean well lit and temperature controlled environment.  They have excellent benefits and I'm a very easy going boss. As long as a request doesn't hurt my productivity I'm happy to grant it and if there is a good reason I'll take a hit in productivity to help them out because happy workers are productive workers and I'm a human being with a heart.  I work well over 40 hours a week and most of the extra time is making up for time lost dealing with stupid complaints and problems created by these people.  They are good honest people and most of them are hard workers, the problem is that even the best person in the world can turn into a complete asshole where there are zero repercussions for their actions.  The union has more money to take grievances to arbitration than the company due to the fact that their union represents huge numbers of employees across many industries so there basically are no repercussions short of the plant closing up and moving to china once it becomes too expensive to operate in North America.


I work at a big three auto.  I've seen plenty of union folk.  You are clueless.
 
2013-11-20 02:49:36 PM  

FarkedOver: Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

The people who laud unions and workers rights have never in their entire life actually encountered an actual union or actual worker.  They are usually 20 something, white, college educated and so naive that they make most 5 year old children look like cynical bastards.  Well that or they are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month.

My employees get paid well over the median income in the area, work indoors in a clean well lit and temperature controlled environment.  They have excellent benefits and I'm a very easy going boss. As long as a request doesn't hurt my productivity I'm happy to grant it and if there is a good reason I'll take a hit in productivity to help them out because happy workers are productive workers and I'm a human being with a heart.  I work well over 40 hours a week and most of the extra time is making up for time lost dealing with stupid complaints and problems created by these people.  They are good honest people and most of them are hard workers, the problem is that even the best person in the world can turn into a complete asshole where there are zero repercussions for their actions.  The union has more money to take grievances to arbitration than the company due to the fact that their union represents huge numbers of employees across many industries so there basically are no repercussions short of the plant closing up and moving to china once it becomes too expensive to operate in North America.

What is insane about communism?  Anarchists, socialists at the end of the day want full communism.  What is it about communism that is truly insane?


22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.
 
2013-11-20 02:49:53 PM  

Egoy3k: Look i know i could have worded that a bit better but do you honestly not understand that paragraph or are you just being a complete farkwit?


Well, I guess I still don't really understand what you were getting at:  Maybe I'm not a complete farkwit, and you just didn't convey your meaning especially well.

Is this right:

People lauding Unions:
Never met an actual union or actual worker.
 are 20 something,
are white,
are college educated
are naive
are already bleeding their employer dry by sitting on their asses whining about the temperature of the coffee in the break room when their break ended 20 minutes ago and planning to strike over a 40 cent pay raise meanwhile thinking nothing about missing 2 or 3 days of work a month.


Are you trying to say that people who laud unions are either naive or actual members of unions?  Is that your point?
 
2013-11-20 02:50:37 PM  

cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.


How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?
 
2013-11-20 02:50:44 PM  

FarkedOver: Egoy3k: FarkedOver: What is insane about communism?  Anarchists, socialists at the end of the day want full communism.  What is it about communism that is truly insane?

The part where we completely protect workers or people in general from the economic consequences of their actions.

So as it is now, corporations are protected from their own malfeasance and workers are subject to the consequences of a business's actions and their own.

So it is socialism for companies and capitalism for the workers.  Interesting.


Privatize the profit, socialize the losses.
 
2013-11-20 02:52:54 PM  

FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?


Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot
 
2013-11-20 02:53:19 PM  

someonelse: The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.


Bullshiat. As a manager if I knowingly create an unsafe condition where one of my employees gets hurt or dies I got to jail and my company is fined.  If I knowingly ignore an unsafe condition that might hurt somebody I can be personally fined and my company will also be fined.  if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible) They can sue my company and put me in front of a human rights tribunal that can fine me personally.  Just last year (not at my company) a man carved the names of three black employees into bananas and left them in the locker room to be discovered.  His employer, as i would, fired him on the spot.  The employer was subsequently sued and forced to re-hire this man.  Workers have no need of extra protection above and beyond what the government already gives them.
 
2013-11-20 02:54:54 PM  

cman: Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.


Hmmm..

I'm not trying to feed the troll too much here, but it really seems there is a huge disparity between the experience in, say, Cambodia compared to Vietnam.

What is the border between "Socialism" and "Communism" in your view?  Is Sweden an authoritarian Police State?

What constitutes an authoritarian police state?  Does the US qualify?
 
2013-11-20 02:55:03 PM  

Jackpot777: BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.

I believe the exact quote is: "Don't worry about purging fark of all these nate silver fellatio threads after Romney wins and his credibility is ruined. I already have screenprints ready to go."

I believe it's that because I have it on a screenprint.



He said lots of similar stupid shiat on multiple occasions:


SlothB77  [TotalFark]
2012-11-06 11:16:31 AM
can't wait for the romney victory so that Nate Silver is proven not credible and we don't have to hear about him anymore.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7419672/Does-what-you-earn-predict-your -v ote-Or-is-it-just-that-witch-Nate-Silver
 
2013-11-20 02:55:06 PM  

Muta: I work at a big three auto.  I've seen plenty of union folk.  You are clueless.


I employ them, what makes your anecdotes better than mine?
 
2013-11-20 02:55:15 PM  

cman: They all started out with good intentions


I'm not so sure about that.
 
2013-11-20 02:55:25 PM  

cman: Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot


Unfortunately communists don't write the history books..... Capitalisms dirty tale is shrouded and it's death toll is at least triple that of "communist" regimes, that is if we apply the same rules that everyone else does to communist regimes.
 
2013-11-20 02:56:25 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot


www.theintellectualdevotional.com
Well, of course not.  We just disappear them.
 
2013-11-20 02:57:09 PM  

Egoy3k: Bullshiat. As a manager


Great, you also are a manager.  So then you know how it actually works.

Egoy3k: if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible)


Right.  But as a manager you also know there is zero chance whatsoever they'll ever prove that, unless of course you mail them a letter saying "you were the perfect candidate except your skin is black, so that is the only reason I turned you down," then you sign it, get it notarized and send it certified mail.
 
2013-11-20 02:58:07 PM  

Skleenar: Well, of course not.  We just disappear them.


So dictatorships and one party rule are bad?
 
2013-11-20 03:01:03 PM  

FarkedOver: cman: Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Unfortunately communists don't write the history books..... Capitalisms dirty tale is shrouded and it's death toll is at least triple that of "communist" regimes, that is if we apply the same rules that everyone else does to communist regimes.


Yeah, and 6 million Jews weren't killed in the Holocaust. Its all a Zionist conspiracy designed to steal water from the Jordan river.
 
2013-11-20 03:01:06 PM  

jigger: cman: They all started out with good intentions

I'm not so sure about that.


Yeah Pol Pot's "regime" had nothing but bad intentions from the outset.
 
2013-11-20 03:01:41 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot


Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on. 

And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...
 
2013-11-20 03:03:22 PM  

jigger: Skleenar: Well, of course not.  We just disappear them.

So dictatorships and one party rule are bad?


I would concur that is most often the case.
 
2013-11-20 03:03:42 PM  

LordJiro: cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.
And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...


I agree.

We have no problems letting other people die.

We don't care.

Indifference happens in capitalism

It also happens in a barter economy, too.
 
2013-11-20 03:03:59 PM  

Rwa2play: jigger: cman: They all started out with good intentions

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah Pol Pot's "regime" had nothing but bad intentions from the outset.


Good thing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam actually intervened and removed the Khmer Rogue from Cambodia.
 
2013-11-20 03:05:20 PM  

cman: Yeah, and 6 million Jews weren't killed in the Holocaust. Its all a Zionist conspiracy designed to steal water from the Jordan river.


6 million jews as well as others who were throw in concentration camps (communists, socialists, gypsies et al.) I would chalk up to fascism which is a subset of capitalism.... it's just capitalism in decay.
 
2013-11-20 03:06:05 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Heliovdrake: Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.

By Ayn Rand's mighty pen, sign me up for this bet as well.

500 Quatloos against the sloth like one.

All Fark bets must be made in gold-pressed latinum.  Your quatloos are no good here, buddy.



I contacted a few online odds makers (Vegas and the UK) about a week ago and tried to place a bet that Obama care would NOT be repealed. No one would take my money.

If the people who will give me 500/1 that Chelsea Clinton will be the next president won't touch this one then Obamacare is truly a toxic asset.
 
2013-11-20 03:07:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: jigger: cman: They all started out with good intentions

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah Pol Pot's "regime" had nothing but bad intentions from the outset.

Good thing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam actually intervened and removed the Khmer Rogue from Cambodia.


North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.
 
2013-11-20 03:07:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tbeatty: People are getting excited about a total enrollment of 90,000 people in California?  Really?  That's about as many sneak across the border.

Let's see, there's 40 million people in California.  90 thousand signed up.  That's about 0.2%.  So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.  And that's a "working state."

What do you think Obamacare IS exactly?


There were 1 million  ACA related cancellations sent out.  The state run California insurance marketplace allowed under Obamacare signed up about 10% of the cancellations (assuming all the cancellations are the signups, which probably isn't the case so even more are uninsured) and 0.2% of the entire population.  And to subby, that means "people are getting insured."  What do YOU think it is, exactly?
 
2013-11-20 03:07:41 PM  
The victims of capitalism? Everyone on the planet who likes to breathe air, drink water and eat food. Do all of these people enjoy the benefits of capitalism? Of course not. Pollution and environmental degradation are merely the collateral damage we accept so that the rich can continue to get richer.
 
2013-11-20 03:09:01 PM  

BunkoSquad: SlothB77 [TotalFark] 2012-11-06 11:33:38 AM

When Romney wins, it is threads like this that Fark.com will delete and farkers everyone will pretend never existed.


www.neogeoforlife.com

/those who forget history, etc., etc.
 
2013-11-20 03:10:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Good thing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam actually intervened and removed the Khmer Rogue from Cambodia.


I'll just say this about it:  That was one of the most stupid and funny things I have ever read in world history.

So this new republic of Cambodia, established by the Khmer Rouge, essentially becomes a dystopic wasteland that would resemble today's North Korea.

They decide to fark with Vietnam; Vietnam decides "I've had enough of this shiat", declares war, kicks the Khmer Rouge's ass and ejects them from Cambodia....

Yet the US demonizes them for it.

Like I said:  Stupid because the US (and other nations) condemned Vietnam for it.  Funny but it was Vietnam ejecting a regime that even they couldn't stand the sight of..
 
2013-11-20 03:10:14 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: jigger: cman: They all started out with good intentions

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah Pol Pot's "regime" had nothing but bad intentions from the outset.

Good thing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam actually intervened and removed the Khmer Rogue from Cambodia.

North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


How civilized, at least compared to free market Iraq.
 
2013-11-20 03:11:19 PM  

cman: LordJiro: cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.
And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...

I agree.

We have no problems letting other people die.

We don't care.

Indifference happens in capitalism

It also happens in a barter economy, too.


It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the poor so the country isn't drained completely dry.
 
2013-11-20 03:12:15 PM  

Egoy3k: someonelse: The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.

Bullshiat. As a manager if I knowingly create an unsafe condition where one of my employees gets hurt or dies I got to jail and my company is fined.  If I knowingly ignore an unsafe condition that might hurt somebody I can be personally fined and my company will also be fined.  if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible) They can sue my company and put me in front of a human rights tribunal that can fine me personally.  Just last year (not at my company) a man carved the names of three black employees into bananas and left them in the locker room to be discovered.  His employer, as i would, fired him on the spot.  The employer was subsequently sued and forced to re-hire this man.  Workers have no need of extra protection above and beyond what the government already gives them.


That's fine, if you believe that workers are entitled to no leverage with management beyond the right not to be killed or injured through negligence.
 
2013-11-20 03:12:40 PM  

cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


Now let's not start on something that (in retrospect) the US would've been better off leaving alone.

I always call those that fought in Vietnam "The Lost Generation".  This country lost them to stupid-ass politics that really wouldn't have moved the needle either way.
 
2013-11-20 03:13:46 PM  

LordJiro: cman: LordJiro: cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.
And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...

I agree.

We have no problems letting other people die.

We don't care.

Indifference happens in capitalism

It also happens in a barter economy, too.

It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...


You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us
 
2013-11-20 03:15:50 PM  

Garet Garrett: Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?

See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/


"Feldstein fears that a simple cost-benefit analysis will tell too many young people to pay the fine and forgo insurance until they absolutely need it. Is he right? Probably not. Feldstein might be right that a rational self-maximizer would calculate that the fine is a better deal, and drop his coverage. But people, real people, aren't rational self-maximizers. We have quirks. One of those quirks is we don't like to pay something for nothing.  "

"Now, sign-ups didn't spike because Massachusetts had tough penalties. Romneycare's penalties were even weaker than Obamacare's penalties. So either weak penalties were incentive enough or people were buying insurance just because they were supposed to. "

It is simply remarkable to me that people who write stuff like this seem to be complete unable to accept the notion that having a decent healthcare plan is good risk management policy at the individual level. No one is immune to risk. Maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of young healthy people out there that would much rather have a healthcare plan than roll the dice by going without with the knowledge that they'd go bankrupt if they so much as had anything worse happen to them then break an arm.

My brother, unknowingly, had 3 herniated disks in his neck. At the beach one day (I was there) he was in the ocean and a fairly big wave crashed against his back. The minor 'whiplash' he received nearly paralyzed him (his spinal chord was pinched between two vertebrae). He was unable to move for several minutes, nearly drowned, and had to be pulled out of 3 feet of water. He had to be medevac'd to the local trauma center. He was in a neck brace for months until he could get stabilization surgery that put plates around those 3 herniated disks. Thankfully, he made a full recovery. But no warning whatsoever. Totally healthy, swimming in the ocean, wave hits *bang*. Months of treatment, surgery, and therapy.

Yea, having healthcare is more about planning for the unexpected rather than "just because they were supposed to".
 
2013-11-20 03:18:58 PM  

Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?

Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.


Well, you responded to me twice, so you're doing a bad job of ignoring me.
 
2013-11-20 03:20:28 PM  

lennavan: Egoy3k: Bullshiat. As a manager

Great, you also are a manager.  So then you know how it actually works.

Egoy3k: if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible)

Right.  But as a manager you also know there is zero chance whatsoever they'll ever prove that, unless of course you mail them a letter saying "you were the perfect candidate except your skin is black, so that is the only reason I turned you down," then you sign it, get it notarized and send it certified mail.


Yeah but lately the burden of proof has been drifting towards the employer.  Don't get me wrong It's not that I want to discriminate, I don't. It's that when I hire there is always a risk that my company could face legal action that regardless of how groundless it is costs money to defend against.  Manufacturing in North America has extremely small margins when comparing it to manufacturing in say, China where you don't have to pay workers much or worry about pollution or any of the other things they don't care about. The only edge we have are better educated, more capable employees who are able to make decisions and think on their feet. When those same employees become potential vectors for legal action over alleged slights you are in serious trouble.
 
2013-11-20 03:21:31 PM  
ronhamprod.com
Have black folk started shooting white folk yet? Cause that's the sign of the holy war against Capitalism.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:22 PM  

someonelse: Egoy3k: someonelse: The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.

Bullshiat. As a manager if I knowingly create an unsafe condition where one of my employees gets hurt or dies I got to jail and my company is fined.  If I knowingly ignore an unsafe condition that might hurt somebody I can be personally fined and my company will also be fined.  if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible) They can sue my company and put me in front of a human rights tribunal that can fine me personally.  Just last year (not at my company) a man carved the names of three black employees into bananas and left them in the locker room to be discovered.  His employer, as i would, fired him on the spot.  The employer was subsequently sued and forced to re-hire this man.  Workers have no need of extra protection above and beyond what the government already gives them.

That's fine, if you believe that workers are entitled to no leverage with management beyond the right not to be killed or injured through negligence.


Yeah because my single paragraph fark post was the sum total of all regulations and legislation that I comply with by law instead a small sample.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:44 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.



So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:47 PM  

cman: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...

You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us


I said *particularly* Republicans, not exclusively. Democrats do love big business, but again, they at least understand the need to throw scraps to the poor. High profits can't last long when the customer base has no money and, y'know, things like riots are bad for business.

Also, Democrats are not liberals. There is next to no liberal representation in our government; we have conservatives and extremists.
 
2013-11-20 03:25:23 PM  

LordJiro: cman: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...

You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us

I said *particularly* Republicans, not exclusively. Democrats do love big business, but again, they at least understand the need to throw scraps to the poor. High profits can't last long when the customer base has no money and, y'know, things like riots are bad for business.

Also, Democrats are not liberals. There is next to no liberal representation in our government; we have conservatives and extremists.


Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.
 
2013-11-20 03:26:13 PM  

cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.
 
2013-11-20 03:26:33 PM  

cman: /Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter


So not true. I agree that ultimately, both parties are working more for their rich donors than they are for us. But that doesn't mean that their tactics are not very different.
 
2013-11-20 03:27:29 PM  

LordJiro: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the poor so the country isn't drained completely dry.


You just don't understand.  Republicans are engaging in tough love.  If the poors are faced with starvation then they will look harder for a job.  When they prostitute themselves to feed their kids they learn the dignity of honest work.

(Some) Republicans honestly believe that they are helping the poor by cutting benefits.
 
2013-11-20 03:28:09 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.


I have to admit that's a pretty impressive way to be completely wrong.
 
2013-11-20 03:28:23 PM  

FarkedOver: cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.

So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.


No

I know Communists are indifferent, too.
 
2013-11-20 03:29:47 PM  

cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.


That seems reasonable.
 
2013-11-20 03:33:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.

That seems reasonable.


The problem is is that I don't like getting it up the ass

If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.
 
2013-11-20 03:33:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: That seems reasonable.


Weird, though.  It's a political analogy by a conservative that features homosex as its central metaphor.

I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:05 PM  

Skleenar: Evil High Priest: That seems reasonable.

Weird, though.  It's a political analogy by a conservative that features homosex as its central metaphor.

I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.


oh ffs...

This world isn't filled with only Liberals and Conservatives.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:42 PM  

Evil High Priest: cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.

That seems reasonable.


Ooooooooooooooooooooooooookay; guess this thread went to a certain place it was not meant to pass through.
 
2013-11-20 03:36:28 PM  

cman: If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.


I am confident that your repeated denials are conclusive evidence of your absence of gayness.  I bet there isn't even the slightest shred of attraction to another man in your being.  You're not one of those guys who sees something like this:
www.mimifroufrou.com
And you feel an unexpected stirring down "there".

Nope.  Not the guy who asserts twice in a single post that he isn't gay, right after graphically describing gay sex.
 
2013-11-20 03:39:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?

Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.

Well, you responded to me twice, so you're doing a bad job of ignoring me.


True. I suppose I shall have to rectify that. Especially since you're not actually answering anything.


FarkedOver: cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.

So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.


So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?
 
2013-11-20 03:41:08 PM  

Skleenar: cman: If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.

I am confident that your repeated denials are conclusive evidence of your absence of gayness.  I bet there isn't even the slightest shred of attraction to another man in your being.  You're not one of those guys who sees something like this:
[www.mimifroufrou.com image 530x686]
And you feel an unexpected stirring down "there".

Nope.  Not the guy who asserts twice in a single post that he isn't gay, right after graphically describing gay sex.


Usually a guy who supports homosexual marriage and transgendered rights are the straight people. Its the gay bashers and the tranny haters that are the actual gay people.
 
2013-11-20 03:47:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?

Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increase ...


I didn't know healthcare was supposed to be about financial balance.

I thought it was supposed to be about healthcare.
 
2013-11-20 03:50:06 PM  
I get back in here from a week of beating a newish computer into submission with a non-orthodox install of W7 and....what the hell is THIS dripping off the ceiling!?
 
2013-11-20 03:53:15 PM  

Felgraf: So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?


It sucks that shiatty things happen during revolutions and during war.

Let me put it to you this way, had the Vietnam not been subject to foreign influence I doubt you would have had the violence we saw.

During the Spanish Civil War Franco staged a coup against a popularly elected government because it was too far to the left...... Not even socialist or communist it was a legit popular government.

During the Russian revolution, the October revolution was staged with very little casualties, I think maybe 4 people died in the October revolution.  It was the ensuing war and foreign involvement that caused all the problems.

Shiatty things happen during war.
 
2013-11-20 04:03:18 PM  

FarkedOver: Felgraf: So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?

It sucks that shiatty things happen during revolutions and during war.

Let me put it to you this way, had the Vietnam not been subject to foreign influence I doubt you would have had the violence we saw.

During the Spanish Civil War Franco staged a coup against a popularly elected government because it was too far to the left...... Not even socialist or communist it was a legit popular government.

During the Russian revolution, the October revolution was staged with very little casualties, I think maybe 4 people died in the October revolution.  It was the ensuing war and foreign involvement that caused all the problems.

Shiatty things happen during war.


Oh, I totally agree we farked up vietnam, and had we helped them gain independence from france when they first asked, we'd have had a staunch ally.

And yes. farked up things happen in war.That doesn't make farking Mai Lai's and dissapeared folks in south american countries farking OKAY. Nor does it make the murdering of kids 'cause, hey, their parents did bad shiat, OK. To suggest that "Welp! Terrible things happen in war" just... seems like the people that so glibly dismissed shiat like, well, Mai Lai, or Abu Grahib. Or the continuous horrors america sponsored in south america-why should anyone REALLY care? Bad things happen in war, after all. Those folks shouldn't have aligned themselves with people we felt were marxists, I suppose!

No, wait, that's a HORRIFYING point of view to have.
 
2013-11-20 04:05:51 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.


You don't read good, do you?
 
2013-11-20 04:06:59 PM  
With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"
 
2013-11-20 04:11:04 PM  

skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"


static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-11-20 04:16:52 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.

You don't read good, do you?


You don't critically think good, do you?
 
2013-11-20 04:18:54 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

[static.fjcdn.com image 449x422]


Besides, the states are even better at being racist than the Federal government.

or something.

I may need a new gasket on my rusherator.
 
2013-11-20 04:22:42 PM  

skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"


Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!
 
2013-11-20 04:25:50 PM  
skylabdown: HALP!! What's that burning smell?

Yup.
 
2013-11-20 04:26:19 PM  

Felgraf: Oh, I totally agree we farked up vietnam, and had we helped them gain independence from france when they first asked, we'd have had a staunch ally.

And yes. farked up things happen in war.That doesn't make farking Mai Lai's and dissapeared folks in south american countries farking OKAY. Nor does it make the murdering of kids 'cause, hey, their parents did bad shiat, OK. To suggest that "Welp! Terrible things happen in war" just... seems like the people that so glibly dismissed shiat like, well, Mai Lai, or Abu Grahib. Or the continuous horrors america sponsored in south america-why should anyone REALLY care? Bad things happen in war, after all. Those folks shouldn't have aligned themselves with people we felt were marxists, I suppose!

No, wait, that's a HORRIFYING point of view to have.


It's as if the point of war is to horrify.  That's the way it has always been.  Hell just look at General Sherman.  You have to make people hurt if you want to win.  Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.
 
2013-11-20 04:26:45 PM  

theknuckler_33: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!



Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!

This is for your Mr. Knuckler 33:   : (
 
2013-11-20 04:30:48 PM  

skylabdown: Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!


That is a, um, fitting response to his comment about conservative humor.
 
2013-11-20 04:37:43 PM  

skylabdown: You don't critically think good, do you?


Sorry for the aside, but did you huff a lot of gas back in the 1970s?
 
2013-11-20 04:40:54 PM  

whidbey: skylabdown: You don't critically think good, do you?

Sorry for the aside, but did you huff a lot of gas back in the 1970s?


Not as much as I do here on Fark.
 
2013-11-20 04:41:23 PM  

FarkedOver: It's as if the point of war is to horrify. That's the way it has always been. Hell just look at General Sherman. You have to make people hurt if you want to win. Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.


Yes, but you seemed to say you weren't horrified by it. You seemed to say "Welp, that happens, what can you do?"
 
2013-11-20 04:53:11 PM  

skylabdown: theknuckler_33: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!


Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!

This is for your Mr. Knuckler 33:   : (


WOW! Another knee-slapper! Keep 'em coming!
 
2013-11-20 05:08:33 PM  

Felgraf: FarkedOver: It's as if the point of war is to horrify. That's the way it has always been. Hell just look at General Sherman. You have to make people hurt if you want to win. Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.

Yes, but you seemed to say you weren't horrified by it. You seemed to say "Welp, that happens, what can you do?"


I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people.  I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.
 
2013-11-20 05:12:03 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.

You don't read good, do you?

You don't critically think good, do you?


Let me break it down for you:
Group A:  STATES RIGHTS, ALWAYS!  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE OF MY STATE'S RIGHTS!
Group B:  Some things should be done by the Feds and others by the States.
Obama:  Here's an opportunity for the individual states to take charge of implementation of a law.
Group A:  NOPE!  OBAMA BAD!
Group B:  Sweet.

Now Group A is complaining that their results are terrible.  Well, tough shiat.
 
2013-11-20 05:25:12 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people. I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.


And you include kids in the "Once oppressing people?"
 
2013-11-20 05:34:04 PM  
Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?
 
2013-11-20 05:38:50 PM  

Felgraf: FarkedOver: I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people. I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.

And you include kids in the "Once oppressing people?"


Children can be so cruel.
 
2013-11-20 05:41:51 PM  

Kittypie070: Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?


first poast
www.buckmasters.com
 
2013-11-20 06:14:43 PM  

FarkedOver: fascism which is a subset of capitalism


i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-20 06:14:55 PM  

Skleenar: Kittypie070: Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?

first poast
[www.buckmasters.com image 515x800]


Boobias.
 
2013-11-20 06:18:51 PM  

LordJiro: Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.


Communism is great for starvation, disease, and desperation!
 
2013-11-20 06:22:35 PM  
what the hell?
 
2013-11-20 07:28:46 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.

Are you trying for a sucker bet because there is no such thing officially known as "Obamacare" so it's already not-alive?


ACA will never be repealed and the one day it is replaced will represent additional regulation (not less).
 
2013-11-20 08:18:56 PM  

Skleenar: Kittypie070: Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?

first poast
[www.buckmasters.com image 515x800]


BASF Poast Plus™ Herbicide never got called an ASSHOLE.
 
2013-11-20 09:41:31 PM  

Kittypie070: what the hell?


Likewise

I have no idea what the fark is going on

You know what that means?

I am acting normally
 
2013-11-20 10:30:18 PM  
5 million people lost their insurance in October.
0.1 million people signed up for Obamacare.

Therefore "people are getting insured"

Got it.
 
2013-11-20 11:01:49 PM  

whidbey: Skleenar: Kittypie070: Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?

first poast
[www.buckmasters.com image 515x800]

BASF Poast Plus™ Herbicide never got called an ASSHOLE.


Not like you.
 
2013-11-20 11:10:59 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Heliovdrake: Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?

I, too, will take that bet.

By Ayn Rand's mighty pen, sign me up for this bet as well.

500 Quatloos against the sloth like one.

All Fark bets must be made in gold-pressed latinum.  Your quatloos are no good here, buddy.


No one's going to cover my 30,000 woolongs?
 
2013-11-20 11:21:50 PM  

tjfly: 5 million people lost their insurance in October.

were informed that their current insurance was ending on Dec. 31st and they would be moved to a new policy.
0.1 million people signed up for Obamacare.

Therefore "people are getting insured"

Got it.


Fixed for outright lies.

Those 5 million, most of them were told if they did nothing they'd be automatically moved to a new policy.  ALL of them can buy a new policy from their current insurer or the exchanges.  Many of them will even receive better coverage, or cheaper coverage.

GFY.
 
2013-11-21 01:20:42 AM  
DemonEater: Many of them will even receive better coverage, or cheaper coverage.


Riiiiigggghhhttttttt.  Because that's what insurance companies are known for.

/Unless you mean 58 year old women will soon be paying for/receiving maternity coverage.  Then "better" = "retarded".
  Oh. and don't forget the 58 y/o women that are giving up hearing aids for abortion coverage.  Just because it's "better."
 
2013-11-21 09:41:13 AM  

jigger: FarkedOver: fascism which is a subset of capitalism

[i.imgur.com image 300x562]


Mussolini defined fascism as the marriage of the corporation and the state.  How is that not capitalism?  Oh wait, you're a an idiot that thinks that everything that involves the state is "socialism".  You do realize that socialism is defined as worker control of industry and proletarian control of the government? You just don't care obviously, and instead post a picture. Fascism is corporatism.  Corporatism is capitalism.

Capitalism is like a piece of shiat.  You can roll it into a ball or form it into a square and call it whatever you like, but guess what? It's still a piece of shiat.
 
2013-11-21 09:43:39 AM  

Felgraf: FarkedOver: I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people. I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.

And you include kids in the "Once oppressing people?"


Is this a think of the children argument? I mean children die in war.  I don't usually count them as oppressive people, but in Africa some times there are children soldiers that are extremely vicious.  If a child is shooting at you, you shoot back..... Yeah, that's a terrible thing to have to deal with, but these things happen.
 
2013-11-21 12:17:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Well it seems that either Libertarianism says nothing about it or I forgot the passage regarding human nature. It seems that whenever Libertarianism says one thing, reality biatch-slaps it and is stunned to find out it can't doing anything to counter the biatch slap.

I think lots of Libertarians believe in Praxeology.... which was pioneered by a bunch of fascist sympathizers and flat out racists.  (i.e. Mises and Rothbard).

/looks up Praxeology

So...is it wrong for me to surmise that Praxeology was trying to predict human action based on a set of circumstances?  Because if that's the case, we would've been farked as a culture had we followed through with such a thing. :)

It's pseudo-science more or less.

Ah yes, I understand that level of junk science quite well.

They attempt to apply it to economics for the most part and in doing so make some pretty vile judgements on different races.

Ahhh the austrian school of economics a bunch of proto-fascists

My apologies for the earlier outburst.  Have you favorited as "A cool Marxist"

I have him tagged as "dirty filthy red son of a biatch Marxist. ". His words, not mine.


I don't have him tagged, but he is painted in "red 1", the only Farker to have earned that honor.
 
Displayed 415 of 415 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report