Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 03:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 10 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›
   901. BDC Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4654761)
Interesting theoretical discussion about the biopolitics of mating and marriage, but in reality … there are lots of people who are highly satisfied with lots of kinds of polyamorous or sequentially monogamous arrangements. Actual polygynous marriage, though, seems to be practically accompanied by the disproportionate power of the husband over his wives. Forget about the men who won't get to mate with them and whatever functional consequences that might have for society or the gene pool; the more basic issue is whether women are really ever free in polygynous arrangements. I'm not talking guy with girlfriends in two cities who sort of know the other exists and are sort of OK with it. I'm talking guy with senior wife and two junior wives and division of labor, pecking order, priority of children's status, and all the fun stuff that has generally led women to escape harems when they can.
   902. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4654762)
Derek Jeter is a 10-out-of-10 status man; any woman beneath 9-out-of-10 status is completely beneath his notice (and social status is a steep bell curve, so that comprises a good 98% of women that Derek Jeter will never notice, no matter how much they want him.)


A sitting POTUS ###### Monica Lewinsky. Your theories are wrong.
   903. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4654764)
Just math really. If you assume rough parity in numbers between the genders, and if the top 10% of males are each monopolizing the sexual access to multiple women as wives/concubines/etc., then that means a significant number of lower status men are going to have to go without. Men with no possibility of a wife or children typically have less stake in society; the world dies with them. So why work harder than your society absolutely demands of you? Why go fight and die in its wars? A society that doesn't serve the needs of its people can't last; people will refuse to do the work necessary to maintain it, seek to leave it, or attempt to tear it down.

This doesn't mean polygamy is necessarily the kiss of death, plenty of societies have managed to function with polygamy, but their track records compared to monogamous societies aren't all that great.


This. Take two equal societies. Society A has monogamy; 80-90% of the men manage to acquire a mate at some point. Society B has polygamy; the top-20% of high status men average 3 "wives", and only 40% of men ever manage to acquire a mate.

Society A launches a war against B promising to exile the top-20% of males, and redistribute 75% of their property (the rest society A will keep) and 100% of their "wives". Society B collapses like a house-of-cards from internal dissension and loses the war in 3 weeks.
   904. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4654765)
A sitting POTUS ###### Monica Lewinsky.


Based on my recollection of the events in question I have no idea what "######" would be here.
   905. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4654766)
So why work harder than your society absolutely demands of you? Why go fight and die in its wars? A society that doesn't serve the needs of its people can't last; people will refuse to do the work necessary to maintain it, seek to leave it, or attempt to tear it down.


But sending them off to die in wars is exactly what societies have done with their low-status males throughout all history of civilization, and the low-status males have always gone along with it. That has only very recently changed.

A sitting POTUS ###### Monica Lewinsky. Your theories are wrong.


Touché.

He didn't marry her, though. Again, we have been (or at least I have been; sorry if I've been unclear) talking about the long-term mating arrangement we call marriage. Women have been marrying the steady provider and screwing the hot groundskeeper, and men have been marrying the trophy wife and screwing pretty much any woman that spends more than an hour in his presence, since the dawn of time. Good for the race's gene pool, if you're into evolutionary psych and such.
   906. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4654767)
This is true but you are dramatically overestimating its societal effect.


There are pretty convincing studies that show polygamous cultures where rich men "horde wives" tend to be extremely misogynistic (to be expected) and generate a much larger proportion of holy warrior types (i.e. suicide bombers - men who have no real opportunity to advance sexually agree to blow themselves up for god more easily.)
   907. spike Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4654768)
the best I can do is try to prevent you from imposing it on all the people who won't accept it as right.

Who exactly is being forced to gay marry? What exactly is being "imposed" on anyone?
   908. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4654770)
Then your position is simply sour grapes.

No, my position is trying as best I can to prevent the Gov't from infringing my freedom of conscience.

I still want to be married, and value marriage highly. I just don't give 2 shits (and never had) for whether the Gov't says I'm married or not. I attempted to get married without a marriage license, but the Catholic Church requires one (for now). I don't view civil marriage as having any meaning.
   909. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4654772)
Who exactly is being forced to gay marry?


If any gays get married, all marriages are gay, spike.
   910. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4654773)
No, my position is trying as best I can to prevent the Gov't from infringing my freedom of conscience.


There is nothing about civil recognition of gays and lesbians, including their right to marry, that infringes upon your freedom of conscience. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. "But I have to live with them" isn't infringing your freedom.

As you know, the Catholic church can do whatever it likes with its religious ceremonies. If you want to agitate within your church to change its processes, have at it. Just don't try to roll that into the civil state.
   911. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4654776)
Who exactly is being forced to gay marry? What exactly is being "imposed" on anyone?

The natural extension of the gay marriage movement is branding anyone who doesn't celebrate gay marriage as a bigot, and requiring all Churches to recognize and perform gay marriage.

They're already prosecuting a baker for failing to recognize gay marriage. I already know my government has no regard for freedom of religion. The only question is how bad it gets, how quickly.
   912. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4654777)
The natural extension of the gay marriage movement is branding anyone who doesn't celebrate gay marriage as a bigot, and requiring all Churches to recognize and perform gay marriage.


Like the way everyone demands that the Catholic church recognize divorce? Oh. That's right. This is persecution complex run amok.
   913. BrianBrianson Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4654778)
I don't view civil marriage as having any meaning.


I felt the same way about traffic lights until I got T-boned by a semi. ;)
   914. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4654779)
Like the way everyone demands that the Catholic church recognize divorce? Oh. That's right. This is persecution complex run amok.


Or the way we force them to marry Protestants. Or Muslims. Or Jews.
   915. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4654780)
Like the way everyone demands that the Catholic church recognize divorce? Oh. That's right. This is persecution complex run amok.

Please. I've already been called plenty of nasty names here for not supporting the gay marriage agenda. No way this push stops with mere tolerance.
   916. Ron J2 Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4654781)
#898 Hugh Grant is the best example I can think of. In a relationship with Elizabeth Hurley he chose what one comic called, "Mike Tyson in a dress" for a random sexual encounter.
   917. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4654782)
Or the way we force them to marry Protestants. Or Muslims. Or Jews.


Or gays. Or animals. Or gay animals!
   918. spike Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4654783)
The natural extension of the gay marriage movement is branding anyone who doesn't celebrate gay marriage as a bigot,

Horsecrap. You're already a bigot to people who believe in marriage equality. And how exactly do we "brand" someone and what do you mean by "celebrate"?


I already know my government has no regard for freedom of religion.

Given the drumbeat for anti-Sharia laws in places with few to no Muslims, I certainly agree. We have a particularly vicious anti-religious strain of people in this country. That many claim to be quite pious is a bitter irony that is not lost on the rest of the world.
   919. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4654784)
Please. I've already been called plenty of nasty names here for not supporting the gay marriage agenda. No way this push stops with mere tolerance.

What's beyond "mere tolerance"? Was anyone forced to marry someone of a different race post-Loving?

And the idea that the US doesn't have freedom of religion strikes me as a classic first world problem.
   920. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4654785)
Given the drumbeat for anti-Sharia laws in places with few to no Muslims, I certainly agree. We have a particularly vicious anti-religious strain of people in this country.


Or the attacks on the "Ground Zero" "mosque". There's sure a lot of religious bigotry in America, but it's not aimed at Christians.
   921. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4654789)
...methodically fracturing into at least three distinct groups that dislike each other (the centrists, the neo-libertarians and the religious right).
This is close to what I've been using as shorthand: the Money, Bombs and Jesus wings of the GOP.
   922. BDC Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4654795)
The bakery case in Oregon is interesting.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the {Oregon} Bureau of Labor and Industries.


I quote from a Fox News report of a few weeks ago.

I infer that if the bakery was a religious entity, they'd have been within their rights to refuse – sort of undermining the contention that this is a blow to freedom of conscience. A secular business does have to operate in a non-discriminatory way, where non-discrimination laws exist.
   923. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4654797)
I infer that if the bakery was a religious entity, they'd have been within their rights to refuse – sort of undermining the contention that this is a blow to freedom of conscience. A secular business does have to operate in a non-discriminatory way, where non-discrimination laws exist.


This is correct. The investigation was against the business, not against an individual. Businesses cannot have religious beliefs, and therefore cannot have its religious rights violated.
   924. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4654801)
Please. I've already been called plenty of nasty names here for not supporting the gay marriage agenda. No way this push stops with mere tolerance.


This is just persecution complex run amok. Yes, you've probably been called out for opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians on the OTP threads here. You willfully and knowingly participate in these threads with full knowledge that others will counter your assumptions and preferences, often in less than subtle rhetoric. This OTP thread is not the state.

Your religious freedom has not been compromised in any way whatsoever. Your freedom of conscience is not impacted one little bit by gay rights being civilly recognized as equal under the law. You are mired in a persecution complex of some momentous proportion.
   925. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4654805)
#898 Hugh Grant is the best example I can think of. In a relationship with Elizabeth Hurley he chose what one comic called, "Mike Tyson in a dress" for a random sexual encounter.


Yeah, that's an excellent example. The Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski one is good as well. And didn't Jude Law get into trouble for banging the nanny while he was with Sienna Miller? High SMV men are often not super discriminating in terms of who they'll enjoy sexual encounters with. Who they'll marry/date long-term/be seen in public with is a different story, because it could affect their status.
   926. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4654807)
There are pretty convincing studies that show polygamous cultures where rich men "horde wives" tend to be extremely misogynistic (to be expected) and generate a much larger proportion of holy warrior types (i.e. suicide bombers - men who have no real opportunity to advance sexually agree to blow themselves up for god more easily.)

I know I wanted to explode everything in the world after I learned that that homunculus Billy Joel met Christie Brinkley and Elle MacPherson at the same moment on the same day, and was soon successful in clambering upon both.
   927. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4654808)
Please. I've already been called plenty of nasty names here for not supporting the gay marriage agenda.

Um. By "not supporting" do you mean "vocally opposing"?
   928. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4654812)
This. Take two equal societies. Society A has monogamy; 80-90% of the men manage to acquire a mate at some point. Society B has polygamy; the top-20% of high status men average 3 "wives", and only 40% of men ever manage to acquire a mate.


I love the assumptions here. First that everyone wants a mate (this turns out not to be true), that if everyone doesn't get a mate society is unstable (not true either, pretty much every society has "singles" and as society gets wealthier and people can afford to not get a mate they often do), and of course that there exists polygamy but not polyandry and so a bunch of men will not have mates (I see no reason there should be more polygamous voluntary relationships than voluntary polyandrous relationships).

A whole bunch of the history of how relationships were structured combines elements of economics (having to mate for economic reasons) and sexism (high status men get multiple women, but women never get multiple men). However both of these are changing. We are moving towards having enough economic freedom and little enough gender and role bias, such that people can be free to join in whatever combination suits them, well as soon as the laws catch up anyway.

   929. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4654819)
I know I wanted to explode everything in the world after I learned that that homunculus Billy Joel met Christie Brinkley and Elle MacPherson at the same moment on the same day, and was soon successful in clambering upon both.


Thus are the powers of the Piano Man.
   930. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4654820)
I just don't give 2 shits (and never had) for whether the Gov't says I'm married or not. I attempted to get married without a marriage license, but the Catholic Church requires one (for now). I don't view civil marriage as having any meaning.
So to be clear, you and your wife still file individual tax returns as a form of protest, correct?
   931. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4654821)
Um. By "not supporting" do you mean "vocally opposing"?


And let's be clear. Snapper fully supports the *state* having unequal treatment of citizens for the rights of civil marriage, as long as that benefit leans towards his religious convictions. But having the state require equal treatment of citizens is somehow a burden on him, personally, from a religious conscience perspective.
   932. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4654822)
I am surprised by the hand-wringing Democrats sometimes engage in and the denial Republicans sometimes engage in, because it looks very much to me like the Republican Party, at least in its present form, is circling the drain. It has no central identity, no charismatic leadership, and has spent the last five-plus years methodically fracturing into at least three distinct groups that dislike each other (the centrists, the neo-libertarians and the religious right).


The hand-wringing is that this nation is trending slightly conservative in ideas, at least in the libertarian mode, and that if the GOP ever got its #### together, the Dems would be in some trouble. That's why we move to the center on so many things.

But these things have a way of ebbing and flowing. Part of why we're trending conservative for the last 20-30 years is a reaction to liberalism overreaching/not having their #### together in the 60s and 70s. Liberalism could very well enjoy a resurgency because the conservative movement falls into the same pratfalls.
   933. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4654823)
(I see know reason there should be more polygamous voluntary relationships than voluntary polyandrous relationships).


Because women want high status men. It's just a fact you can ascertain through simple observation of the world around you. And high status men not only don't have to share a woman with other men, they could quite easily get access to multiple high SMV women. Conversely, high SMV women are often quite willing to share a high status male with other women, and in fact would prefer that arrangement to having 100% of a low status male.

Polyandrous relationships almost always involve one (or more) low status males; guys with very poor SMV who are taking the best deal they can get. They're usually initiated by the woman in the hopes of getting access to higher status males than the poor mope she's currently stuck with. So you typically have a low status loser who's taking half a loaf since it's better than nothing, a higher status male who's filling the Hugh Grant/Jude Law role (eh, getting laid here with minimal effort), and a hypergamous woman with mediocre (or worse) SMV.
   934. Morty Causa Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4654824)
So much depends on a fat American waxing righteously about his eternal individual rights. Both the rich and famous and the poor and struggling have the same right to date a swimsuit model. Guess which one does. But that's okay, we'll give the female rejects food stamps and male reservations at prisons.
   935. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4654831)
Because women want high status men.


I'm not sure you're the proper authority on "what women want," buddy.
   936. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4654832)

But these things have a way of ebbing and flowing. Part of why we're trending conservative for the last 20-30 years is a reaction to liberalism overreaching/not having their #### together in the 60s and 70s. Liberalism could very well enjoy a resurgency because the conservative movement falls into the same pratfalls.


It's an interesting thought experiment: if the Republican party jettisoned those evangelicals in their party in order to capture the more libertarian leaning independents and Democrats, do R vote totals, increase, decrease or hold neutral? As a libertarian leaning voter, I can say that I find the modern incarnation of the Republican party frightening and tend, slightly, to vote D while holding my nose. If they made the swap I suggest, I would go back to voting R, while holding my nose.

But I really have no idea if it would be broadly profitable for them.
   937. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4654841)
bunyon: It would not. In the long game the religious right is certainly on the path to marginalization, but it's going to take several decades for them to get there. Right now they are a significant chunk of the Republican voter base, which is why the RNC hasn't, and won't anytime soon, told them to collectively go take a long walk on a short pier. A lot of sitting Republicans would lose their seats if they took a public stance that pisses off the religious right (gay marriage, abortion, you know the religious right's berzerk buttons).

That's why it's hard to foresee the Republican Party gaining any cohesion anytime in the near future. Each of its three primary factions sincerely detests both of the others.

Obama was very defeatable in 2012, but he coasted to re-election because a lot of neo-libertarians and religious right stayed home or went for third parties or write-ins rather than vote for Romney. The religious right in particular strongly disliked Romney, which is why an empty suit like Rick Santorum could play pretend at being a challenger for a few weeks.

Also playing a large role in all this is the fact the Republican Party hasn't produced a charismatic leader on a Clinton/Obama level since Ronald Reagan. It would take some astounding charisma to hold these three factions together for even a few years.
   938. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM (#4654842)
i love the fact that we've already come so far that noone has even acknowledged that it's only been 10 years since anti-sodomy laws were formally ruled unconstitutional in the united states.

that there is anyone who thinks civil unions were ever (or are now) an acceptable alternative to the people who would right now, in 2014, put us in jail and throw away the key (even putting aside the separate but equal nature of civil unions which should make civil unions a non-starter for gays in the first place) is a testament to the work that has been done to advance the homosexual agenda.

   939. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4654845)
And the idea that the US doesn't have freedom of religion strikes me as a classic first world problem.

I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about where we're going.
   940. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4654848)
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about where we're going.

What specifically do you think is going to happen?
   941. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4654851)
It's an interesting thought experiment: if the Republican party jettisoned those evangelicals in their party in order to capture the more libertarian leaning independents and Democrats, do R vote totals, increase, decrease or hold neutral? As a libertarian leaning voter, I can say that I find the modern incarnation of the Republican party frightening and tend, slightly, to vote D while holding my nose. If they made the swap I suggest, I would go back to voting R, while holding my nose.


I see this a lot. It's basically the cutting edge Libertarian version of David Brooks's eternal complaint for a "moderate third party option."
   942. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4654853)
It's just a fact you can ascertain through simple observation of the world around you.


I strongly suspect I have a better window into a variety of non-standard marital arrangements than you ever will. Basically you are way oversimplifying and overgeneralizing. The world is much more complex, dynamic, and even fluid than you seem to acknowledge.

a testament to the work that has been done to advance the homosexual agenda.


Amen brother.

I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about where we're going.


Greater diversity and more tolerance. It is a slow road, but one worth traveling.
   943. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4654855)
that there is anyone who thinks civil unions were ever (or are now) an acceptable alternative to the people who would right now, in 2014, put us in jail and throw away the key (even putting aside the separate but equal nature of civil unions which should make civil unions a non-starter for gays in the first place) is a testament to the work that has been done to advance the homosexual agenda.

FWIW, I know plenty. I know, or associate with, no one who would put you in jail but plenty that think marriage is a bridge too far but would do civil unions. As I say, it may be an extreme minority I'm accidentally in the midst of.

I see this a lot. It's basically the cutting edge Libertarian version of David Brooks's eternal complaint for a "moderate third party option."

Then the idea that we're (the US) trending libertarian is absurd. People want to tell other people what to do. It's just down to figuring out who gets to.

   944. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4654860)
Then the idea that we're (the US) trending libertarian is absurd. People want to tell other people what to do. It's just down to figuring out who gets to.


This is 100% true. When the Dems are in charge, the GOP is suddenly very, very concerned about "libertarianism" and making sure individual freedoms are respected and not dictated by the nefarious powers that be. The Dems are worried about the orderly working of society and the advancement of their agenda. When the GOP is in charge, the Dems are suddenly very, very concerned about "libertarianism" and making sure individual freedoms are respected...

Etc, et al. That said, the Dems have a much better track record of actually advancing the freedoms of traditionally marginalized and oppressed human beings of late, the rightwing pseudo-libertarian's lament of "taxes as tyranny" notwithstanding.
   945. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4654861)
To be clear, the trend is for whatever pseudo-libertarian element that is not in power to agitate for "freedom and liberty" until their actual home team takes control, at which point they are happy to sit back and explain to the other side's pseudo-libertarian element that their concerns are bullocks and the powers in charge are merely doing what is necessary to run the nation and protect its borders, etc et al.

The number of actual libertarians in the world is exceedingly small. They're basically the "true independents" rather than the "independent leaners," and they make up such a small portion of the electorate that they can be ignored by whatever party is actually in power. They are usually courted, rhetorically, but the out of party power, attempting to scrape up enough votes to regain power, at which point they will boot the libs out the door in short order.
   946. zenbitz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4654865)
Wait... so you are saying that if we somehow had a society that insisted on monogamy, Jeter and the like wouldn't soak up all the chicks? I mean, I guess if polygamy was allowed - he could marry them all and keep them permanently off the market? But he can already do that - they just cannot divorce him (which some fraction would do for 1% of net worth or whatevs).

In short - I don't see how current society actually prevents high status men from getting all the wimmins.

That being said - I believe in a historical context - in which Women are essentially chattel and extra-marital sex significantly more shameful - there is more of a clear divide between mongamous and polygamous societies.

From a sociobiological point of view - preferred (quasi?) monogamy is not the only stable solution... take ants for instance.

If the issue is Jeters taking all the wimmin because they have an excess of status and wealth... the obvious solution is to limit the amount of status and wealth that can be accumulated. #reddiaperdoperbabies

   947. zenbitz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4654868)
Oh, and mostly to "prove" that I don't get ALL my news from BBTF (I got this from my fb feed)

“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy… your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products. Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal… Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”
- Jack Welch, 2009


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/
   948. ASmitty Posted: February 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4654869)
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about where we're going.


In a world where gay marriage is illegal:

1. You are free to think that homosexuality is sinful, and free to shout it from the mountain tops.
2. Homosexuals are not free to get married.

In a world where gay marriage is legal:

1. You are free to think that homosexuality is sinful, and free to shout it from the mountain tops.
2. Homosexuals are free to get married.

So, what's the problem? Your freedoms are unchanged in the second world, and freedom as a whole is increased. Your main concern appears to be that you're afraid in World #2 that you'll be called a bigot. Big deal. There is no freedom from being called names. You're free to think homosexuality is wrong, I'm free to think you're a bigot. Isn't freedom fun?
   949. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4654871)
Your main concern appears to be that you're afraid in World #2 that you'll be called a bigot. Big deal.


Apparently calling gay men "faggot" is okay, but calling someone a bigot is beyond the pale? Weird.
   950. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4654875)
Nevada has announced it will no longer enforce its ban on same sex marriage. Republican governor Brian Sandoval has agreed.

How a Single Gay Juror Brought Down Nevada’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

And now it has toppled completely. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit on Monday conceding that, following the gay juror ruling, “the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable.” Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, agrees, admitting that “it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court.” And just like that, the always ridiculous rationale for banning gay marriage fell away, revealing the silly, nonsensical bigotry that has always lurked underneath.
   951. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4654878)
Apparently calling gay men "faggot" is okay, but calling someone a bigot is beyond the pale?


As long as one is careful to mouth the "hate the sin, not the sinner" platitude, sure.
   952. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4654879)
They're not being punished for being obsctructionists now, they've been rewarded. Why stop now? Its quite possible that obstructionism in 2014-2015 will cost them in 2016, but I don't see them thinking that.

If GOP opposition to the unpopular policies of an unpopular Democratic President is "obstructionism", what is Democratic opposition to Republican Presidents, popular or not? Business as usual - although some seem to have short memories.
   953. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4654880)
Because women want high status men.


I'm not sure you're the proper authority on "what women want," buddy.


Do you seriously want to argue that women don't want high status men?

I strongly suspect I have a better window into a variety of non-standard marital arrangements than you ever will.


In the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to accidentally marry a man thinking he was a woman, perhaps. Otherwise, no, that's pretty clearly not the case since you lack a basic understanding of SMV and how it works. It's understandable that low SMV men would delude themselves, but reality is that which exists even when you ignore it.

Basically you are way oversimplifying and overgeneralizing. The world is much more complex, dynamic, and even fluid than you seem to acknowledge.


The existence of a few outliers is hardly material to generalizations that are accurate when applied to the population as a whole, but it's even worse to generalize based on the behaviors of those outliers, which is what you're doing here.
   954. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4654882)
Do you seriously want to argue that women don't want high status men?


Some women want men you would qualify as "high status." Other women want other kinds of men. Funny thing about women is, they tend to want whatever it is they want, and your driving need to shoehorn them all into a big "how women behave" bucket says way more about you and your driving insecurities than it does about an entire sex.

You are projecting a particularly history and socio-economic arrangement - basically feudalism - and pretending that it's a natural order. It's not. It's just you and your preconceptions getting mired up in the swamps again.
   955. Squash Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4654883)
As long as one is careful to mouth the "hate the sin, not the sinner" platitude, sure.

Along with the "we're all sinners" dodge, two of the great and most completely insincere pieces of rhetoric currently out there.
   956. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4654884)
I strongly suspect I have a better window into a variety of non-standard marital arrangements than you ever will.

In the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to accidentally marry a man thinking he was a woman, perhaps. Otherwise, no, that's pretty clearly not the case since you lack a basic understanding of SMV and how it works.


The only thing I've taken from this discussion is that if BBTF was a prison most of you would be washing my socks and undies.
   957. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4654886)
I have to say, Good Face is the most consistent entertaining douchebag poster in these threads.

EDIT - Ah. I forgot the douchebag part. That's not entertaining.
   958. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4654887)
The straw that broke the camel's back? From Ron Fournier of the National Journal - WHY I'M GETTING SICK OF DEFENDING OBAMACARE:
It's getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naïve columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation. For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers. Employers with 50 to 99 workers were given until 2016 to comply, two years longer than required by law. During a yearlong grace period, larger companies will be required to insure fewer employees than spelled out in the law.

Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy. The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—"If you like your health plan, you'll be able to keep your health plan." And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.

Defending the ACA became painfully harder when online insurance markets were launched from a multi-million-dollar website that didn't work, when autopsies on the administration's actions revealed an epidemic of incompetence that began in the Oval Office and ended with no accountability. Then officials started fudging numbers and massaging facts to promote implementation, nothing illegal or even extraordinary for this era of spin. But they did more damage to the credibility of ACA advocates.

Yet some - like Monty Python's Black Knight - pretend all is well: 'Tis just a minor administrative adjustment.

Read the whole thing.
   959. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4654891)
Wait... so you are saying that if we somehow had a society that insisted on monogamy, Jeter and the like wouldn't soak up all the chicks? I mean, I guess if polygamy was allowed - he could marry them all and keep them permanently off the market? But he can already do that - they just cannot divorce him (which some fraction would do for 1% of net worth or whatevs).


Jeter's not monopolizing the chicks. He's banging lots of them, but once they hit the wall after they turn 30 or so, most of them will hop off the #### carousel and find themselves a lower status male (than Jeter) to settle down with. I don't know that it's an ideal scenario from a societal perspective, but it's not like the Jeters of the world are locking these women into seraglios either.

If the issue is Jeters taking all the wimmin because they have an excess of status and wealth... the obvious solution is to limit the amount of status and wealth that can be accumulated. #reddiaperdoperbabies


Won't really help because folks will just find a new measuring stick for SMV other than money. Which is already partially the case anyway. Bill Gates has a lot more money than Jeter, but if you put them both in the club and gave them 30 minutes to score a hottie, I'm pretty sure Jeter would do better. You can limit wealth, but you can't limit status; there's always gonna be a boss ape.
   960. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4654892)
Is this some different Ron Fournier than the one I know?

Because I know of no Democrat or liberal that considers Fournier any beyond a not-wholly-dishonest, but right-leaning columnist... He's David Brooks with a bylines on his resume.

In other news, Jonah Goldberg still hates liberals... Does this spell the end of the liberalism as we know it?
   961. BDC Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4654893)
projecting a particularly history and socio-economic arrangement - basically feudalism - and pretending that it's a natural order

Exactly.

Now, I imagine that, free to choose, people of all sexes and orientations would like to be in relationships with attractive, successful, capable people. If I were a woman I would absolutely want to marry Derek Jeter instead of Eduardo Nuñez. The former is cute and talented and makes an unGodly amount of money. The latter is ugly, has an OBP of .307, and probably gives gift baskets with expired coupons from Applebees. Watching Nuñez play shortstop doesn't make you want to give him free access to intimate activities with your body.

But very few people, free to choose, want to be locked into an imbalanced relationship with someone who is free to acquire more spouses while they're not.
   962. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4654894)
For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers.


Better read as "given more time to make sure they don't have any full-time workers, other than unionized labor and management which already have health insurance".
   963. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4654898)
Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.


What of those things are any less true today than yesterday, Ron?
   964. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4654902)
The same ron fournier who was pals with Rove when Bush was in office and talked to McCain about a senior position on his campaign? Has fournier actually written anything wholeheartedly defending Obamacare?
   965. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4654908)
Well I think there is some evidence that elements of Team Blue care about civil liberties.

Today is the day we fight back against unlawful NSA surveillance. "We" is a coalition of more than 5,700 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Reddit, Tumblr, Mozilla, Daily Kos and Amnesty International.
"We" also includes some key corporate members, reminiscent of the coalition that came together to fight the undemocratic Stop Online Piracy Act.
   966. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4654910)
Because I know of no Democrat or liberal that considers Fournier any beyond a not-wholly-dishonest, but right-leaning columnist... He's David Brooks with a bylines on his resume.


Whom I used to work with in the early '90s in Little Rock, FWIW. IIRC, if he hadn't gotten the Capitol beat I might have (& I didn't want it, vastly preferring the cozy county courthouse).

Or maybe the guy who got it was the Hope product who subsequently got shot outside a crackhouse by cops who were staking the place out & thought he was reaching for a weapon when he was sliding his pipe underneath a car seat. I'd loaned him money a day or two before. Interesting times, those were.


   967. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4654911)
In the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to accidentally marry a man thinking he was a woman, perhaps.

That's uncalled for.
   968. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4654913)
Apparently calling gay men "faggot" is okay, but calling someone a bigot is beyond the pale? Weird.

Never said that's OK, and I've never called a gay man a "faggot".
   969. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4654916)
Some women want men you would qualify as "high status." Other women want other kinds of men.


Care to break those weasel words into percentages? Maybe even go so bold as to use words like "most" or "majority"?

Because in the real world where people aren't blinded by lefty ideology, it's possible to observe that men with certain characteristics (wealth, fame, power, respect, confidence, good looks, height, athletic physique) tend to score both more women, and more desireable women, then men with other characteristics (poor, powerless, unknown, timid, reviled, short, fat, ugly). Are there exceptions? Of course. But as a general rule?

your driving need to shoehorn them all into a big "how women behave" bucket says way more about you and your driving insecurities than it does about an entire sex.


This is what the psychologists might call "projection". I'm not the guy denying reality here.

You are projecting a particularly history and socio-economic arrangement - basically feudalism - and pretending that it's a natural order. It's not. It's just you and your preconceptions getting mired up in the swamps again.


This is not any sort of argument and it fails to address the question. Where are all these other socio-economic arrangements where women don't prefer high status men? There are certainly patriarchal societies where the preferences of women are not taken into account in the slightest, but that's not the same thing. And amusingly ironic considering patriarchy is a civilizational immune response to hypergamy in the first place.

   970. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4654917)
Because I know of no Democrat or liberal that considers Fournier any beyond a not-wholly-dishonest, but right-leaning columnist...

I suppose this makes Fournier the most unpopular man in America, since those on the right consider him an Obama apologist and cheerleader, especially during his tenure as Chief Political Correspondent for the Associated Press, although he has some limits. Obama losing Fournier is not unlike LBJ losing Cronkite over Vietnam.

ObamaCare has become an unending series of exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements and failures.
   971. spike Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4654919)
Fournier? He dropped the "unbiased journalist" disguise years ago when it became clear there was more money in being Drudge Report linkbait. In fairness, grifting such a willingly led constituency must be awfully hard to resist.
   972. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4654920)
Obama losing Fournier is not unlike LBJ losing Cronkite over Vietnam.


Except for the part about probably not one person in 100,000, if not indeed 1 million, not having any idea who the hell Fournier is, I suppose.
   973. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4654921)
I suppose this makes Fournier the most unpopular man in America, since those on the right consider him an Obama apologist and cheerleader, especially during his tenure as Chief Political Correspondent for the Associated Press, although he has some limits. Obama losing Fournier is not unlike LBJ losing Cronkite over Vietnam.


Despite the fact that Fournier very nearly joined John McCain's Presidential campaign as an adviser before taking the AP political correspondent's job?

Or are you saying he almost went to work for John McCain as a mole...
   974. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4654922)
The existence of a few outliers is hardly material to generalizations that are accurate when applied to the population as a whole, but it's even worse to generalize based on the behaviors of those outliers, which is what you're doing here.


The best part is this is said (I guess) seriously from the guy whose entire argument is based around Derek Jeter and similar outliers. Honestly dude, look in a mirror.

People want to be with people they are attracted to. For many (men and women) status is attractive. For other people other things work for them, fame, money, looks, large nose, slim hips, good sense of humor whatever.

Asserting how things are, by extrapolating from Derek Jeter and ignoring high status women who accumulate lovers in a similar (though more discrete fashion) is silly. Like most of your somewhat dim arguments.
   975. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4654923)
ObamaCare has become an unending series of exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements and failures.


And yet it is STILL better than anything the Republicans are proposing, or how health insurance was handled in America before it was implemented.
   976. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4654927)
In the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to accidentally marry a man thinking he was a woman, perhaps.

That's uncalled for.


More to the point it is inaccurate. He needs to stick to "lily white suburb" Ad Hominem attacks*, they are at least accurate.

* Well I would rather he actually argue his point without logical fallacy, but alas he is like the lawyer without the facts or the law on his side.
   977. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4654928)
Obama losing Fournier is not unlike LBJ losing Cronkite over Vietnam.

Primey!

Also, don't you want Obama to grant postponements, etc.? If he didn't, you'd scream he was a dictator trying to ram an unpopular law down our throats. Although I guess you do that anyway.

It's almost like damn if he does, damned if he doesn't...
   978. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4654929)
More to the point it is inaccurate. He needs to stick to "lily white suburb" Ad Hominem attacks*, they are at least accurate.

Accurate or not, there's no excuse for attacking someone over troubles in his personal life.
   979. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4654931)
I'm a former colleague of Fournier's. He's the archetype of the chummy DC media insider.
   980. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4654934)
Obama losing Fournier is not unlike LBJ losing Cronkite over Vietnam.
You're so full of ####. Obama losing Fournier is like the Dodgers losing Babe Ruth. You can't lose someone who was never on your side.
   981. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4654938)
Except for the part about probably not one person in 100,000, if not indeed 1 million, not having any idea who the hell Fournier is, I suppose.


He's a mathematician, yes?
   982. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4654941)
ObamaCare has become an unending series of exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements and failures.

And yet it is STILL better than anything the Republicans are proposing, or how health insurance was handled in America before it was implemented.

Run on that platform if you want, but before ObamaCare ~70% of the American people were satisfied with their health insurance. Going to be a tough sell that ObamaCare was the best option, or even an acceptable option the way it is going. I suspect the next election will see a majority of voters indicating a preference for the GOP's non-ObamaCare policies. It's also worth noting, that one consequence of these exemptions, exceptions, waivers and postponements is that more of the impact of ObamaCare is pushed into 2016, likely having an even greater impact on that year's Presidential election.

More immediately, the Administration is faced with awful options on the Individual Mandate this year. Enforce election-year tax penalties on the large number of people who don't want ObamaCare policies or view them as unaffordable, or order yet another postponement and deal with the adverse selection impact on next year's rates? What's it going to be?
   983. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4654942)
I suspect the next election will see a majority of voters indicating a preference for the GOP's non-ObamaCare policies.


What policies?
   984. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4654943)
The best part is this is said (I guess) seriously from the guy whose entire argument is based around Derek Jeter and similar outliers. Honestly dude, look in a mirror.


I see the problem here is that you don't understand what an outlier is. Derek Jeter is part of a small sample (rich, famous athletes), but he's a representative specimen from that sample. Rich, famous athletes almost always wind up with very high SMV women... just like Derek Jeter does.

People want to be with people they are attracted to. For many (men and women) status is attractive. For other people other things work for them, fame, money, looks, large nose, slim hips, good sense of humor whatever.


Those are all wrapped up in the concept of SMV. There's more than one way to have a high SMV, and there are always exceptions who have non-standard tastes or fetishes. But it's not terribly difficult to create accurate generalizations; straight guys think Kate Upton is hot and Rosie O'Donnell is not. Many women think Bill Clinton is hot. The 65 year old guy mopping the toilets at your local Dunkin Donuts? Probably less so.

More to the point it is inaccurate. He needs to stick to "lily white suburb" Ad Hominem attacks*, they are at least accurate.


My apologies. I shouldn't have assumed that you thought your wife was a woman before you married her.
   985. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4654944)
I'm a former colleague of Fournier's. He's the archetype of the chummy DC media insider.


His audience is basically the slice of people that live in the thinspace in between David Broder and David Brooks.
   986. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4654945)
ObamaCare has become an unending series of exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements and failures.


And millions of people helped. Which makes it worth every other bit. Sometimes the right thing to do has political costs. ACA is one such thing. I wish the rollout was smoother, but as was pointed out above it is light years ahead of anything the GOP has put forth and what existed previously.

Seldom is a complex and terrible fixed in one single blow. It takes years, an unending series, of fixes, tweaks, and compromises. The goal is clear though and we are moving towards it, and things are better than before. Progress!
   987. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4654951)
Care to break those weasel words into percentages?


Nope. Only sad, misguided, ideological fools try to define the chaos of life down to percentages. It takes one of the saddest kind to do so by making up "ballpark" numbers to support their silly monkey bias.

Maybe even go so bold as to use words like "most" or "majority"?


Nope. Why would I need to circumscribe a blinding mess of interlocking, fluid pluralities in such binding, false terms as those? I have no need to project my inadequacies back onto the world.
   988. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4654954)
What policies?


They have floated a bill - I don't think it has been introduced yet- but it actually keeps a lot of Obamacare, but gets rid of the mandate, and pushes a lot of the costs onto patients. Obviously its has zero chance of passing the Senate, much less getting Obama's signature. But it is an alternative I suppose.

Run on that platform if you want, but Before ObamaCare ~70% of the American people were satisfied with their health insurance.


I am happy with my insurance, but that doesn't mean I don't want major reform. I suspect a lot of the people pushing reform are quite happy with their insurance. Some of us actually like to look out for the less fortunate.

   989. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4654958)
Derek Jeter is part of a small sample (rich, famous athletes), but he's a representative specimen from that sample. Rich, famous athletes almost always wind up with very high SMV women... just like Derek Jeter does.


And you don't think Rich and Famous Athletes are outliers? Pretty funny. Plus the fact that you have your gender bias glasses firmly on.

Good looking, wealthy and famous women end up with successful men. Somehow this fact is completely eclipsed by the fact that good looking, wealthy and famous men end up with successful women, because Reasons!

No one is suggesting that mating is not sorted, of course it is. However it is not like you saw on old TV reruns. It is much less a male centric world than you seem to think it is. Women are (too slowly) moving up the ladder and reaching equivalence in status markers.

With financial independence both genders are more free to choose as they want, rather than being forced into a single male/single female relationship, blessed by the local church and state and full of gender approved roles. More and more relationships are much more complex than that. Sure you can put every factor of "attractiveness" and give it a cute little initialism and then proclaim mating is sorted by your initialism, but even when you are in some sense correct you are missing the point.

Everything is not centered around male status, all parties status matters in the sorting. Status is personal, though there are some consensus aspects to it, but who cares? And it is not as driven to be one person from each gender, full stop.

   990. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4654960)
What policies?


He's sandbagging. Don't fall for this crap. He's taking a likely outcome - out of party seats gained in the sixth year of a two-term parties presidency - and pretending like that's a referendum on "Obamacare." As long as the GOP picks up one or two seats, he'll crow about being "right" even though he's not made a single prediction that doesn't amount to "the sun will rise in the East."
   991. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4654961)
Heard from admin yesterday that our benefits were going to both go down and become more expensive. Because of ACA. Not sure if I believe them - well, actually I am sure I don't, just on general principle - but ACA is certainly a nice figleaf for the employers to cover cuts/rate increases.

   992. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4654962)
Run on that platform if you want, but Before ObamaCare ~70% of the American people were satisfied with their health insurance.


People are almost always OK with the status quo. In a couple years people in large part will be happy with the new status quo. That is why the GOP will be unable to roll back ACA, because it is status quo now.
   993. Guapo Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4654963)
Enforce election-year tax penalties on the large number of people who don't want ObamaCare policies or view them as unaffordable, or order yet another postponement and deal with the adverse selection impact on next year's rates?


The penalties won't come due until 2015.
   994. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4654966)
Heard from admin yesterday that our benefits were going to both go down and become more expensive. Because of ACA. Not sure if I believe them - well, actually I am sure I don't, just on general principle - but ACA is certainly a nice figleaf for the employers to cover cuts/rate increases.


Yeah. They're lying. But decoupling insurance from employment is a good long term goal.
   995. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4654968)
Heard from admin yesterday that our benefits were going to both go down and become more expensive. Because of ACA. Not sure if I believe them - well, actually I am sure I don't, just on general principle - but ACA is certainly a nice figleaf for the employers to cover cuts/rate increases.
My monthly premium actually went down this year, with better benefits. The only thing that got worse was the network, but that's because I chose a cheaper plan than I had last year.
Run on that platform if you want, but Before ObamaCare ~70% of the American people were satisfied with their health insurance.
And 70% of the people probably still are, since the mandates and exchanges affect only a minority of the population. What's your point? I was satisfied my insurance before, and I'm satisfied now. But I'm thrilled by the fact that if I have to leave my job for some reason, I can still get health care without paying an arm and a leg in the interim.
   996. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4654972)
I was satisfied my insurance before, and I'm satisfied now. But I'm thrilled by the fact that if I have to leave my job for some reason, I can still get health care without paying an arm and a leg in the interim.


In that case, you don't count. None of these polls quoted seem to ask degrees of satisfaction. It's a simple binary yes or no. Those 1% less satisfied count as a no from a yes. Those 50% more satisfied count as a no change.
   997. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4654976)
Accurate or not, there's no excuse for attacking someone over troubles in his personal life.


Of course there's not. I think we're into "last refuge of scoundrels" territory at that point.
   998. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4654979)
My apologies.


You're being a particularly high profile jackass on this issue. Are you concerned about your dipping status, perchance?
   999. Ron J2 Posted: February 11, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4654985)
Good looking, wealthy and famous women end up with successful men.


Carol Alt was once asked about her "thing" for hockey players. Don't have the exact response handy, but it was basically, start with the fact that my lifestyle is expensive and I'm not going to pay my man's way.

She also said, "what I like about athletes is that not only that they very disciplined with their bodies because their body is their tool and I’m very disciplined with my body too. But they are very focused on a job that lasts a very short amount of time." (She wasn't necessarily choosing for looks. Ron Greschner wasn't a particularly good looking guy)

Oh and on the availability of wealthy and famous women, I recall reading that Ashley Judd went for years without a date. Nobody asked her out in that time. Damn, never thought of that.
   1000. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4654988)
I recall reading that Ashley Judd went for years without a date. Nobody asked her out in that time. Damn, never thought of that.


This is a pretty regular phenomenon. The really, really attractive people often find that they intimidate potential suitors from afar.
Page 10 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4523 - 9:24pm, Dec 17)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(21 - 9:23pm, Dec 17)
Last: trtaylor6886

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(11 - 9:23pm, Dec 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(66 - 9:03pm, Dec 17)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(11 - 8:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogIndians sign Gavin Floyd to deal
(9 - 8:37pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(7 - 8:24pm, Dec 17)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9145 - 8:14pm, Dec 17)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(55 - 8:09pm, Dec 17)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(293 - 8:06pm, Dec 17)
Last: Mefisto

Newsblog"You Are F----d": Breaking down the first-year candidates on the Hall of Fame ballot (Sports Illustrated)
(15 - 7:57pm, Dec 17)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(6 - 7:40pm, Dec 17)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogNew York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2015
(18 - 7:28pm, Dec 17)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogPitching-deficient Yankees re-sign Chris Capuano
(22 - 7:09pm, Dec 17)
Last: No Maas Cashman

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(95 - 6:37pm, Dec 17)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Page rendered in 0.7550 seconds
48 querie(s) executed