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.

(NPR)   The one gift President Obama can still give Democrats seeking reelection in 2014? Cash   (npr.org) divider line 80
    More: Hero, President Obama, Politics of the United States, Haim Saban, gifts  
•       •       •

983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 6:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-27 12:22:40 AM  
Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.
 
2013-11-27 12:30:00 AM  
I like money.

i1309.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-27 12:37:01 AM  
So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.
 
2013-11-27 03:21:25 AM  

Mentat: So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.


Something tells me Obama will have a greater presence in at the 2016 and 2020 Democratic national convention than Bush had at the 2008 and 2012 Republican national conventions.

In other words, they won't deny his very existence.

Just a hunch.
 
2013-11-27 03:58:58 AM  
Really? he just spoke at a Democratic fund raiser in San Francisco on Monday (about 100 yards from my apartment) they couldn't give the tickets away.  They went from $1500+ discounted to about $250.
 
2013-11-27 04:13:55 AM  
No one mentioned repealing Obamacare as a good "gift" yet?
 
2013-11-27 04:14:45 AM  

borg: they couldn't give the tickets away.  They went from $1500+ discounted to about $250.


which one? The one at the Betty Ong Recreation Center, the SFJazz Center, or the one at Marc Benioff's house?
 
2013-11-27 04:17:35 AM  
Hero?

Cash cow maybe.
 
2013-11-27 06:46:43 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-11-27 06:53:44 AM  

Mentat: So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.


And the Republicans would do differently somehow?  This comment, and you, are laughable.
 
2013-11-27 06:57:58 AM  

log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.


Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?
 
2013-11-27 07:00:01 AM  

Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?


Propaganda.  And even NPR is helping push it.
 
2013-11-27 07:07:50 AM  

Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.


How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.
 
2013-11-27 07:10:54 AM  

GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.


They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'
 
2013-11-27 07:17:23 AM  

Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'


Why not? The Affordable Care Act was architected by politicians, not doctors, actuaries, or economists.
 
2013-11-27 07:23:16 AM  
likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

Like Al Gore when he tried to distance himself from Clinton in 2000?

Yeah, that worked out swell.

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-11-27 07:26:48 AM  

Mentat: So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.


I fail to see how this would be different with any other party. Establishment Republicans are regretting their embrace of Tea Party freshman. The difference is that they shine the spotlight elsewhere by manufacturing scandals so they can point their fingers at the Obama and the Democrats.
 
2013-11-27 07:28:09 AM  

Aar1012: Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?


It's your media more than anything else, specifically those claiming to be in the news business.

Filled with false equivalency fallacies, softball questions in exchange for access and lots of tabloitastic fluff.

They have failed you so hard.
 
2013-11-27 07:35:03 AM  

quatchi: Aar1012: Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

It's your media more than anything else, specifically those claiming to be in the news business.

Filled with false equivalency fallacies, softball questions in exchange for access and lots of tabloitastic fluff.

They have failed you so hard.


I completely agree. Everything up to, through, and beyond the Government Shutdown is hardly being questioned or held up to scrutiny. It's all about a website that will be working fine well before the midterms.

I watched Ted Cruz's moment of honesty bite him in the ass by saying there was not much that could be done about Obamacare. His base and the House royally chastized him, which is why he pulled that pointless filibuster fiasco in the first place. He did everything he could do to save face with that sham. Well the Government shut down, and it cost us how many billions? But that's old news because Obama can't lead or something.
 
2013-11-27 07:35:04 AM  
Republicans have already signaled that Obamacare will be the turf much of their 2014 congressional campaigns will be fought on.

If by signaled you mean "ran nails up and down rusty garbage bins."
 
2013-11-27 07:36:14 AM  

Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'


Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.
 
2013-11-27 07:36:32 AM  

GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.


your shtick is getting tiresome.
 
2013-11-27 07:37:39 AM  

jjorsett: Why not? The Affordable Care Act was architected by politicians, not doctors, actuaries, or economists.


The ACA is about insurance coverage, not treatment.
 
2013-11-27 07:39:39 AM  

Alphax: 'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'


On that issue, I'll concede that I'd love to see just ONE reporter ask the people leading the latest challenge to Obamacare why they believe that 'Plan B' is an "abortion drug" when it is no such thing, in any sense of the word.
 
2013-11-27 07:41:00 AM  
Obamacare glitches are the death knell for Democrats in 2014? That's a pretty stupid rehash of right-wing talking points, NPR.

Want immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship? Vote for Democrats.
Want background checks for gun purchases? Vote for Democrats.
Want to protect gay and lesbian people from employment discrimination? Vote for Democrats.
Want to raise the minimum wage? Vote for Democrats.
Want to pass the Buffet Rule? Vote for Democrats.
Want to reverse voter suppression laws? Vote for Democrats.
Want to preserve a woman's right to choose? Vote for Democrats.
Want to close Guantanamo Bay? Vote for Democrats.
Want to invest in infrastructure? Vote for Democrats.
Want to invest in renewable energy? Vote for Democrats.
Want to invest in science, education, technology, and public safety? Vote for Democrats.
Want to pass a jobs bill? Vote for Democrats.
Want a functioning Congress? Vote for Democrats.

Want to continue being able to go to the doctor? Vote for Democrats.

Because guess what, NPR. People like being able to go to the doctor. People like being able to take their kids to the doctor without having to skip paying the rent. People like being able to go to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy. People like being able to get medicine without skipping food. People like being able to get preventative care to keep a small problem from become catastrophic. So while you, NPR, may view providing healthcare to millions of Americans as Obama's Achilles' heel, real people in the real world are thrilled. And your shouting "GLITCHES BAD!" into the echo chamber is not only uninteresting, it makes you seem irrelevant.
 
2013-11-27 07:42:15 AM  

Alphax: Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

Propaganda.  And even NPR is helping push it.


Which is really pissing me off.
 
2013-11-27 07:43:21 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.


You work for Cato?
 
2013-11-27 07:49:01 AM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: Republicans have already signaled that Obamacare will be the turf much of their 2014 congressional campaigns will be fought on.


This time it'll work for sure!
 
2013-11-27 07:54:41 AM  
Remember how the media breathlessly reported that the shut down would cost Republicans the mid term?
 
2013-11-27 07:55:09 AM  

Alphax: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?


No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.
 
2013-11-27 07:58:44 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?

No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.


Well, I'm mystified why you'd want Cato anywhere near public policy.  They were created by the Koch Brothers as a way to come up with fake intellectual sounding justifications for their 'screw everyone else' policies.
 
2013-11-27 08:03:35 AM  

Notabunny: That's a pretty stupid rehash of right-wing talking points, NPR.


As just another commercial media outlet, they got to pay the bills somehow.
 
2013-11-27 08:06:24 AM  

log_jammin: borg: they couldn't give the tickets away.  They went from $1500+ discounted to about $250.

which one? The one at the Betty Ong Recreation Center, the SFJazz Center, or the one at Marc Benioff's house?


SF Jazz center
 
2013-11-27 08:13:31 AM  

Alphax: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Alphax: GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen.  NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?

No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.

Well, I'm mystified why you'd want Cato anywhere near public policy.  They were created by the Koch Brothers as a way to come up with fake intellectual sounding justifications for their 'screw everyone else' policies.


I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.
 
2013-11-27 08:15:14 AM  

Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?


This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.
 
2013-11-27 08:19:21 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.



If you're going to make a point about how 'experts' should not be in charge of public policy (there are some arguments against technocrats), you should at least cite 'experts' and not a  political shill organization of pure ideology -- the exact opposite of 'experts.'  It undercuts your point.
 
2013-11-27 08:35:21 AM  

Alphax: Propaganda.  And even NPR is helping push it.


thanks, liberal media
 
2013-11-27 08:36:28 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.


Yes, they ARE the point.  Balancing someone with hard knowledge, with someone who produces misinformation, is worthless.
 
2013-11-27 08:37:25 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.


If you're going to make a point about how 'experts' should not be in charge of public policy (there are some arguments against technocrats), you should at least cite 'experts' and not a  political shill organization of pure ideology -- the exact opposite of 'experts.'  It undercuts your point.


Again, I'm not arguing the merits of Cato. Replace "Cato" with "Brookings". My point is that you defer to the doctor for the medicine/science/"technical" aspects of the topic. You don't defer to her on public policy. Maybe you don't want to defer to Cato or Brookings either, depending on your ideology, but no matter the ideology you still sure as hell don't defer to the doctor.
 
2013-11-27 08:38:23 AM  

jjorsett: Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.


At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate. It's the adult equivalent of doing a bad job at chores so you are not asked to do them again.

Honestly, fark 'em. Everybody else- it is getting fixed.
 
2013-11-27 08:51:04 AM  
Eddie Barzoom:   At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.

static.someecards.com
 
2013-11-27 08:52:30 AM  

Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?


LOL. Even with the "Goverment Shut Down" (we've been shut down and on Continuing Resolution  since 2010.)  Things are still working better than the healthcare web site.  And that's pretty farking sad. But be clear, the "shutdown" isn't just this latest pissing contest. It's been a circle jerk for years,  I love how the latest dispute has become "THE SHUTDOWN".

Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that.  What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing.   This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so  farked up it's laughable.  it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.


What is it that libtards love to say about chickens?  yea, you got some feathers on your pants, and on your chin too.

/If you like your chicken, you can keep your chicken. Period.
 
2013-11-27 08:57:50 AM  
The chicken is about to come home to roost. At the white house.
 
2013-11-27 09:02:37 AM  

log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.


You maybe wise to do so. Lawyers haven't really cut the mustard.

Pardon my harsh language
 
2013-11-27 09:16:27 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Eddie Barzoom:   At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.


I'm playing devils-ass advocate against a previous ass-grab. So I will allow it.
 
2013-11-27 09:18:00 AM  

Danger Mouse: Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

LOL. Even with the "Goverment Shut Down" (we've been shut down and on Continuing Resolution  since 2010.)  Things are still working better than the healthcare web site.  And that's pretty farking sad. But be clear, the "shutdown" isn't just this latest pissing contest. It's been a circle jerk for years,  I love how the latest dispute has become "THE SHUTDOWN".

Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that.  What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing.   This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so  farked up it's laughable.  it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.


What is it that libtards love to say about chickens?  yea, you got some feathers on your pants, and on your chin too.

/If you like your chicken, you can keep your chicken. Period.


frepowfilms.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-27 09:25:38 AM  

Eddie Barzoom: Zeb Hesselgresser: Eddie Barzoom:   At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.

I'm playing devils-ass advocate against a previous ass-grab. So I will allow it.


stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-11-27 09:29:55 AM  

jjorsett: This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.


Interesting choice of words. Interesting, as in giant exaggeration. It's a "galactic failure" to members of the media and politicians of a certain party that aren't at all affected. A lot of people who might be affected by this aren't looking at cause and effect, or "Why did my insurance company screw me over?" Lots of people seem quite pleased to do no research and only listen to talking points in the media that just point fingers at the president. Meanwhile, my brother can go back onto mom's insurance until he's 26 or gets his own, and my friend can get covered screenings for her pre-existing conditions (i.e. cancer).
 
2013-11-27 10:00:39 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.


Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.
 
2013-11-27 10:02:37 AM  

jjorsett: millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way.


You'd think, if their life was in danger because of a glitchy website, they'd call the phone number.
 
2013-11-27 10:16:47 AM  

log_jammin: borg: they couldn't give the tickets away.  They went from $1500+ discounted to about $250.

which one? The one at the Betty Ong Recreation Center, the SFJazz Center, or the one at Marc Benioff's house?


I saw the line of middle-aged white guys for the Jazz Center, down the block and around the side...
 
2013-11-27 10:26:20 AM  

Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?


George W. had Iraq and Katrina driving his low poll numbers. Obama's at roughly the same level because a website wasn't working 100% on the first day.

It's farking infuriating.
 
2013-11-27 10:27:00 AM  

what_now: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.


Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.
 
2013-11-27 10:32:55 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: Mentat: So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.

And the Republicans would do differently somehow?  This comment, and you, are laughable.


The Democrats have turned bravely running away into an art form.  The Republicans tend to double down on the derp.

As I've said before, we have two parties in this country: one with no brains and one with no balls.
 
2013-11-27 10:39:21 AM  
Eddie Barzoom:

jjorsett: This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.

Eddie Barzoom: At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate. It's the adult equivalent of doing a bad job at chores so you are not asked to do them again.

Honestly, fark 'em. Everybody else- it is getting fixed.


Eddie, first, your 60% number is obviously based on your imagination. Second, we all watched Tea Party Social Security and Medicare recipients denouncing the evils of socialism, so I see no reason to believe that they won't continue to do that with Obamacare. Every tiny issue they encounter will be Obama's fault and a clear failure of socialism, every thing that goes well will be because God (or their insurance company) is looking out for them.

Jjorsett, thankfully only Lewinsky had a very personal, intimate experience with Clinton's "glitch", so the comparison seems poor. And if we look at it, Clinton is now viewed pretty favorably as a good President despite the GOPs best efforts at the time to smear him. If Obamacare succeeds as well as I think it ultimately will, then Obama will come out looking like FDR; a President who tackled a major social issue and made life better for everyone. And unlike Social Security and Medicare, which most people couldn't tell you which President implemented, "Obamacare" will be his forever thanks to the GOPs efforts to tar him with it.

None of the above is intended to trivialize the experiences of people who are going to suffer because of this, and make no mistake, there will be some. However, by trying to repeal Obamacare the GOP is trivializing the suffering of the nearly 50 million uninsured people in this country. It would be one thing if they offered a better plan; but they've got nothing.
 
2013-11-27 10:46:08 AM  

Danger Mouse: what_now: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.

Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.


You're really that stupid? Does it hurt? Do you remember to breath in an out all the time or do you have reminders?
 
2013-11-27 10:48:26 AM  

Mentat: LeoffDaGrate: Mentat: So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them.  Lovely party, the Democrats.

And the Republicans would do differently somehow?  This comment, and you, are laughable.

The Democrats have turned bravely running away into an art form.  The Republicans tend to double down on the derp.

As I've said before, we have two parties in this country: one with no brains and one with no balls.


You must not have been paying attention during the shutdown. The Democrats grew some balls, stood their ground, and the Republicans took a lickin'. Whether this helped the Republicans grow a brain is unclear -- we'll see how they handle the next budget impasse and debt ceiling increase.
 
2013-11-27 10:54:10 AM  

Danger Mouse: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

what_now: Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.

Danger Mouse: Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.


Do you ever wonder why the majority of women vote for Democrats?

I'll give you a hint. Most women would view that comment as both reflecting tremendous ignorance and dismissal of their concerns. Some would view it as borderline misogynistic.
 
2013-11-27 11:01:05 AM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

what_now: Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.

Danger Mouse: Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.

Do you ever wonder why the majority of women vote for Democrats?

I'll give you a hint. Most women would view that comment as both reflecting tremendous ignorance and dismissal of their concerns. Some would view it as borderline misogynistic.


I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.
 
2013-11-27 11:04:27 AM  

Danger Mouse: Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that.  What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing.   This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so  farked up it's laughable.  it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.


You do understand that the plan was to have each state manage their own exchange, right? The Federal exchange was supposed to maybe handle a handful of states.

Instead, nearly all the states with Republican governors or Republican controlled legislatures decided NOT to take control over the implementation themselves, and instead rely on the Federal Government to do it for them. This dramatically increased the complexity of the task, which already was challenging since Government procurement and oversight processes frankly suck for managing software development.

No question that the administration screwed up, but there were a lot of things out of their control that contributed to that.

Finally, the administrations response to it was to apologize, admit they screwed up, vow to fix it, and take action in that direction.

What would you have done differently?
 
2013-11-27 11:05:51 AM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that.  What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing.   This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so  farked up it's laughable.  it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.

You do understand that the plan was to have each state manage their own exchange, right? The Federal exchange was supposed to maybe handle a handful of states.

Instead, nearly all the states with Republican governors or Republican controlled legislatures decided NOT to take control over the implementation themselves, and instead rely on the Federal Government to do it for them. This dramatically increased the complexity of the task, which already was challenging since Government procurement and oversight processes frankly suck for managing software development.

No question that the administration screwed up, but there were a lot of things out of their control that contributed to that.

Finally, the administrations response to it was to apologize, admit they screwed up, vow to fix it, and take action in that direction.

What would you have done differently?



I wouldnt have done it at all.
 
2013-11-27 11:07:28 AM  

Danger Mouse: I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.


You think that's is an insult, implying that I think like a woman.

I view it as a complement. It's a good think to be in touch with what women want.

/keep digging
 
2013-11-27 11:11:47 AM  

Danger Mouse: Finally, the administrations response to it was to apologize, admit they screwed up, vow to fix it, and take action in that direction.

What would you have done differently?

I wouldnt have done it at all.


That wasn't the question. The question was how would you respond to a situation where you screwed up.

George W. Bush, after his disastrous Presidency, was asked if there were any mistakes he'd made, anything he'd do differently. He couldn't think of a single thing.

Scott Walker, after the controversy he caused in Wisconsin, was asked the same question. He had a ready list of mistakes he'd made, ways he would have approached the problem he was trying to solve differently.

I can respect Scott Walker for that reason, even if I disagree with what he did. I can't say the same for Bush.
 
2013-11-27 11:12:38 AM  

Zasteva: It's a good think thing to be in touch with what women want.


I need to proofread.
 
2013-11-27 11:15:34 AM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.

You think that's is an insult, implying that I think like a woman.

I view it as a complement. It's a good think to be in touch with what women want.

/keep digging



Tell me, do you often belive yourself to know what other people are thinking? First you claim to know what women would think of my position on subsidized female contraception, and then you tell me that I thought my remark to you was ment to be an insult.  You really are missing the point, and I would suggest that rather than make statements on what you think others to belive, but speak for youself about your own positions.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
 
2013-11-27 11:17:12 AM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Finally, the administrations response to it was to apologize, admit they screwed up, vow to fix it, and take action in that direction.

What would you have done differently?

I wouldnt have done it at all.

That wasn't the question. The question was how would you respond to a situation where you screwed up.

George W. Bush, after his disastrous Presidency, was asked if there were any mistakes he'd made, anything he'd do differently. He couldn't think of a single thing.

Scott Walker, after the controversy he caused in Wisconsin, was asked the same question. He had a ready list of mistakes he'd made, ways he would have approached the problem he was trying to solve differently.

I can respect Scott Walker for that reason, even if I disagree with what he did. I can't say the same for Bush.


I would have delayed the implementation of a known farked system rather than blow smoke up the country's ass.
 
2013-11-27 11:38:36 AM  

Danger Mouse: Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

what_now: Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.

Danger Mouse: Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.

Do you ever wonder why the majority of women vote for Democrats?

I'll give you a hint. Most women would view that comment as both reflecting tremendous ignorance and dismissal of their concerns. Some would view it as borderline misogynistic.

I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.


Well I'm a woman. And I'll tell you that digging on Sandra Fluke makes us think one of two things:

1) you are utterly unaware of how the female body works. So much so that sex with you would be like teaching a three year old how to perform calculus

or

2) you know that you're just repeating bullshiat lies, but you don't care because you consider women to be lesser creatures and therefore unworthy of your care.

Which is it?
 
2013-11-27 11:57:23 AM  

what_now: Danger Mouse: Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

what_now: Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.

Danger Mouse: Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.

Do you ever wonder why the majority of women vote for Democrats?

I'll give you a hint. Most women would view that comment as both reflecting tremendous ignorance and dismissal of their concerns. Some would view it as borderline misogynistic.

I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.

Well I'm a woman. And I'll tell you that digging on Sandra Fluke makes us think one of two things:

1) you are utterly unaware of how the female body works. So much so that sex with you would be like teaching a three year old how to perform calculus

or

2) you know that you're just repeating bullshiat lies, but you don't care because you consider women to be lesser creatures and therefore unworthy of your care.

Which is it?


1) what was a lie?

2) how do you infer from my postion of not forcing a private insitution to subdsidzed a grown womens brith control to be an indication of my knoweldge of female anotomy?  Honeslty can you explain your ranting?  You're not making any sense and being very insulting.

Do you typically insult people who disagree with you?
 
2013-11-27 12:10:46 PM  

Danger Mouse: Zasteva: Danger Mouse: I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.

You think that's is an insult, implying that I think like a woman.

I view it as a complement. It's a good think thing to be in touch with what women want.

/keep digging


Tell me, do you often belive yourself to know what other people are thinking? First you claim to know what women would think of my position on subsidized female contraception, and then you tell me that I thought my remark to you was ment to be an insult.  You really are missing the point, and I would suggest that rather than make statements on what you think others to belive, but speak for youself about your own positions.


No, I don't know what other people are thinking. I observe how they behave and then estimate the likelihood of what they were thinking based on their actions.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong and you did not intend that as an insult, but simply as a maladroit way to say that I shouldn't claim to know what other people are thinking, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding you. It was not my intention to put words in your mouth.

But even then you are still incorrect. I'm not claiming to know what other people are thinking. I'm saying that a poll of a random sample of women would reveal that a majority of them would find your statement offensive and/or out of touch with their concerns.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a majority of women would approve of your statement?
 
2013-11-27 12:13:43 PM  
Danger Mouse: Zasteva:  The question was how would you respond to a situation where you screwed up.

Danger Mouse: I would have delayed the implementation of a known farked system rather than blow smoke up the country's ass.


Isn't that exactly what Obama did by granting waivers to the insurance companies to let them sell their non-compliant policies to people for another year?

You do understand that he doesn't have the power to just suspend the entire law for a year, don't you? -- that would take an act of Congress.
 
2013-11-27 12:18:41 PM  

what_now: Well I'm a woman. And I'll tell you that digging on Sandra Fluke makes us think one of two things:

1) you are utterly unaware of how the female body works. So much so that sex with you would be like teaching a three year old how to perform calculus

or

2) you know that you're just repeating bullshiat lies, but you don't care because you consider women to be lesser creatures and therefore unworthy of your care.

Which is it?


I'm going to go with both 1 & 2 on this one.

/PS: your fark advice thread summary had me almost falling out of my chair laughing!
 
2013-11-27 12:21:14 PM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Zasteva: Danger Mouse: I bet some would even call it racist. But that doens't make it true.

But next time I want to know what women think, I'lll come to you, Ed.

You think that's is an insult, implying that I think like a woman.

I view it as a complement. It's a good think thing to be in touch with what women want.

/keep digging


Tell me, do you often belive yourself to know what other people are thinking? First you claim to know what women would think of my position on subsidized female contraception, and then you tell me that I thought my remark to you was ment to be an insult.  You really are missing the point, and I would suggest that rather than make statements on what you think others to belive, but speak for youself about your own positions.

No, I don't know what other people are thinking. I observe how they behave and then estimate the likelihood of what they were thinking based on their actions.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong and you did not intend that as an insult, but simply as a maladroit way to say that I shouldn't claim to know what other people are thinking, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding you. It was not my intention to put words in your mouth.

But even then you are still incorrect. I'm not claiming to know what other people are thinking. I'm saying that a poll of a random sample of women would reveal that a majority of them would find your statement offensive and/or out of touch with their concerns.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a majority of women would approve of your statement?


Whoa. you''ve gone from saying I  would be labled a  "misognyst" to now  "wouldn't approve".   ???
 
2013-11-27 12:26:44 PM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Zasteva:  The question was how would you respond to a situation where you screwed up.

Danger Mouse: I would have delayed the implementation of a known farked system rather than blow smoke up the country's ass.

Isn't that exactly what Obama did by granting waivers to the insurance companies to let them sell their non-compliant policies to people for another year?

You do understand that he doesn't have the power to just suspend the entire law for a year, don't you? -- that would take an act of Congress.


And that's exactly what the republican represenatives wanted to do. And it turns out it might have been a very good idea.   I have no doubt that if the admistration was to take a position of delaying this a year itr would pass through both houses --er maybe. I think the democrats are fearing voter backlash and would like to kick this turd down the road past the mid term elections.
 
2013-11-27 12:38:08 PM  
Danger Mouse: Zasteva:  I'm saying that a poll of a random sample of women would reveal that a majority of them would find your statement offensive and/or out of touch with their concerns.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a majority of women would approve of your statement?

Danger Mouse: Whoa. you''ve gone from saying I  would be labled a  "misognyst" to now  "wouldn't approve".   ???


Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question. Tell me how you believe the majority of women would react to your statement. Describe that reaction in your own words, if you like, no need to get caught up on mine.
 
2013-11-27 12:44:05 PM  

Danger Mouse: And that's exactly what the republican represenatives wanted to do. And it turns out it might have been a very good idea.   I have no doubt that if the admistration was to take a position of delaying this a year itr would pass through both houses --er maybe. I think the democrats are fearing voter backlash and would like to kick this turd down the road past the mid term elections.


Are you talking about waiver bill that the House just approved and Obama promised to veto? Or all the attempts to repeal or delay before there was ever a problem with the website?

In the former case, if the House GOP was so hot to solve the problem, why did they put a poison pill in their bill that Obama would refuse to swallow -- that is, the ability of the insurance companies to sell non-compliant policies to *new* customers, instead of just letting them renew for existing customers?

There is only one reason, they wanted to make sure the Dems would fight it show that people like you could run around claiming that the GOP tried to fix the problem but the Dems wouldn't let them.

Unfortunately for them, we are smarter than that.
 
2013-11-27 12:50:37 PM  

Zasteva: Danger Mouse: Zasteva:  I'm saying that a poll of a random sample of women would reveal that a majority of them would find your statement offensive and/or out of touch with their concerns.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a majority of women would approve of your statement?

Danger Mouse: Whoa. you''ve gone from saying I  would be labled a  "misognyst" to now  "wouldn't approve".   ???

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question. Tell me how you believe the majority of women would react to your statement. Describe that reaction in your own words, if you like, no need to get caught up on mine.


I honesty belive the majority of women would be split on the Sandra Fluke issue (although not around the Fark politics tab. Most come across as angy liberals such as what_now).  But  the whole point if we go way back to my statment was making women's health a political football; something Fluke intentionaly did. You then implied that my beliefs would have me labled a misogynist.  I find that to be an ignorant, over the top statement.

If you want to change your orignal comment to "Danger mouse, I think some women wouldn't agree with you"  then fine. I'll drop the whole thing. I can certainly see that point. But your irational and demeaning response to me brought you here.
 
2013-11-27 01:25:49 PM  

Danger Mouse: I honesty belive the majority of women would be split on the Sandra Fluke issue (although not around the Fark politics tab. Most come across as angy liberals such as what_now).  But  the whole point if we go way back to my statment was making women's health a political football; something Fluke intentionaly did. You then implied that my beliefs would have me labled a misogynist.  I find that to be an ignorant, over the top statement.

If you want to change your orignal comment to "Danger mouse, I think some women wouldn't agree with you"  then fine. I'll drop the whole thing. I can certainly see that point. But your irational and demeaning response to me brought you here.


Let's review:

Danger Mouse:  Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.

Zasteva: Do you ever wonder why the majority of women vote for Democrats?

I'll give you a hint. Most women would view that comment as both reflecting tremendous ignorance and dismissal of their concerns. Some would view it as borderline misogynistic.


Compare those two statements in bold. Do you really expect me (or anyone else in this thread) to agree that:

"Some [women] would view it as borderline misogynistic."

was irrational and demeaning?

I merely pointed out the reaction your words would get. I didn't endorse the position that they were borderline misogynistic. And borderline is a pretty important qualifier.

Look again at your own words. You outright stated that she was too cheap to pay $9 for something she needed and was demanding that it be given to her. Is that not demeaning and insulting?

Sandra fluke was arguing that Catholic organizations shouldn't be exempted from contraceptive coverage (which includes more than birth control pills, which not all women can take, and others choose not to take). So your statement was at best a gross misrepresentation of her position. Is that not irrational, or at least irresponsible?

Regardless, my intent was not to demean you personally, just point out the flaw in the idea you expressed.

That said, if you want to run around making demeaning and irresponsible statements, you have to expect people to call you on it. I was much kinder to you than most here would be. See what_now's response if you doubt it.
 
2013-11-27 04:07:17 PM  

log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.


By program, you mean have any sort of oversight or leadership role in his most important legislative initiative?

Because his claims that he never heard any of the many reports that there were major problems brewing up to and including Senator Baucus saying the implementation was turning into a "train wreck" is not the least bit believable.

The fact that he spent several weeks lying and claiming the only problem was that the web servers were overloaded by demand is especially damning.
 
2013-11-28 07:48:20 AM  

Danger Mouse: Hey, Sandra Fluke needs to get her free birth control because the $9 free market prescription was too much of a burden.


Free? Are you saying people don't have to pay for their insurance? That it's free for everyone?

Fluke wanted to make sure religious whackjobs (like the kind that have taken over the GOP in recent year) don't get to endanger women's health by not allowing them to get what they pay for when they buy insurance.

I realize you are just a troll and not a particularly bright one at that but even with all that understood that was a really, really stupid remark that shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue you are trying to speak on beyond parroting some talking points you have heard.

If you had the brains the FSM gave a gnat you would be properly embarrassed by that remark but you don't.
 
2013-11-28 02:33:58 PM  
All the lobbyists have to do is get to President Obama, who in turn can trickle down the wealth to congress.
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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