User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7579 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
Ray's nuts here. There's a Kool-Aid flavor for everyone, even Grapeasaurus Rex.
is here, and is too detailed to properly excerpt.
David actually got my point better than this. Opposition to the ACA polls consistently at about 47.5%. Support polls consistently at about 39.5%. These baselines have held steady since roughly April 2010. BUT, 10-14% of the opposition comes from liberals who wanted single payer.
David wants to say "it doesn't matter why they oppose it, they oppose it." That seems silly on its face, to me.
Agreed. Any discussion about the "popularity" of the act is pretty silly IMO.
And to me (I suspect that a majority of those would rather have the ACA than status quo). Key point, though, stands - the ACA as people understand it is not particularly popular right now.
Silly - but relevant to tactics.
MCoA: I'm inclined to agree w/ your #499 as to how the right should play this - agnostic as to how this will actually go down.
agreed
the "states can do it but Feds can't" contingent consists entirely of people voting against Obama anyway
If you'd actually read what I posted, you'd see that I did not claim that all, or even most liberals live in bubbles. I also agreed that conservatives are increasingly starting to partition themselves into bubbles of their own, and wish they had the capability to do so more completely. It's not a particularly controversial position, and the backlash to it here probably represents how uncomfortably true it rings for certain people. Always amusing to see the need some people have to specify that somebody else's general statement about a relatively small subset of the population certainly doesn't include THEM. Methinks they protest too much.
Not so at all. This was an extension of even the improperly extended commerce clause power.
Also: any discussion about how this Supreme Court decision might affect the 2012 Presidential election.
But we heard from the Act's supporters: "Hey, even if it's unconstitutional, it's POPULAR!"
IF Barack Obama is not reelected in 2012, and IF history concedes that he was voted out after one term because of his pursuit of the ACA (as history has decided the Democratic majority of the House was voted out), was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?
No you didn't.
Basically none of the act's supporters thought it was unconstitutional. The liberal consensus is basically Yeargh's #504 - that the constitutional objection is entirely trumped up and insane on its face.
(The footnote to this consensus is that under a full Return to the Gilded Age reading of the constitution, it's possible to render Obamacare unconstitutional, but not without also rendering Social Security and Medicare and god knows how much of the existing state apparatus also unconstitutional.)
Concur.
I don't think one can reasonably argue that it won't become increasingly popular with time. Canada's probably he closest comparison to America, and a typical Canadian Conservatives would rather slam his dick in a sliding glass door than be seen as anything by the guardian of public healthcare. Even Canadian Libertarians mostly don't want to talk about it, because they know people who've seen both sides of the fence overwhelmingly choose the public option.
There were plenty of those who thought that the existing commerce clause jurisprudence was too broad and needed to be scaled back.
But you are right in that there were a great many people who thought it was unconstitutional because someone in the media said it was.
and people wonder why strict libertarian positions never get popular backing
The reason Scalia is advocating against Obama from the bench this election cycle is because he desperately wants a GOP POTUS to nominate Kennedy's replacement and preserve or further the New Gilded Age minority* of the court. (*at this point we have to assume there is no majority, only two minorities competing for John Roberts' approval.)
How do my posts on the subject lead one to the conclusion that any particular individual MUST live in such a bubble? I only re-engaged on the topic when you mentioned me by name.
Absolutely - and the people who run campaigns aren't dummies. Nonetheless, I've been surprised before.
The relevant polling question isn't so much the popularity of the law as it's the popularity of the Court overturning it. The polls I've seen have shown that while there were more people who wanted the law to be entirely overturned than who wanted to see it entirely upheld, the majority of people wanted the non-mandate provisions to be upheld.
The NYT/CBS poll, for example:
Overturn whole law: 41%
Keep whole law: 24%
Overturn mandate, keep the rest: 27%
Yes but try telling that to some of the frothing wingers posting over at some conservative sites...
TownHall is particularly fun since some lefties have started showing up to taunt the righties, maturity all around!
(And, as I think Danny agrees, there's vanishingly little evidence for the Backlash Theory of the political effect of Supreme Court decisions.)
But I think the question is, within that 50-55% of those who either support or opposed because they wanted single payer, would there have been enough passion around the issue to lead to a "backlash"? And I'd guess that those in the 10-15% would be more likely to get fired up about the SC decision overturning ACA than a lot of the 40% who support it. But I think anyone who pays enough attention to politics to be enraged by the SC overturning ACA was already going to vote for Obama. Maybe it would bump up turnout and/or donations a bit.
===
was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?
No. But I think it's pretty unlikely that if Obama loses, it'll be due to ACA. I think Romney's "Obama fiddled with ACA while the economy burned" narrative loses a lot of its punch now that ACA has been upheld, especially in light of the fact that he hasn't provided any sort of alternative.
==
a typical Canadian Conservatives would rather slam his dick in a sliding glass door than be seen as anything by the guardian of public healthcare.
For those of us unfamiliar with your system, does Canadian health insurance cover this sort of injury?
Can you give us a clearer start date for that bit of nostalgia?
We've got our own right here:
It is a terrible day for freedom
I know you actually believe this is true, because, well, you're David, but it's not. Here's what liberals wanted.
To provide health insurance to those who could not previously afford it.
Well, that's awesome, GF, because that's not close to what you were writing in response to, what you quoted of MCoA's:
All? Most? Why would you even write that in your response to what MCoA wrote? He was even LESS specific than you:
Who is protesting too much, exactly?
including the DNC Exec Dir. who tweeted "It's Constitutional, #######!"
It wasn't here.
Health care, particularly childrens' health care, remains an sphere of life too profound for money and the amoral values of the marketplace to impact outcomes as much as they do.
It would, but I don't recommend trying it, regardless.
I knew the hiring of Rick James to the DNC was a bad idea.
To provide health insurance to those who could not previously afford it.
Thank you, Sam. Sometimes the most obvious point needs to be re-stated. Let the Republicans run against that if they wish, because that's exactly how Obama is going to properly frame the issue.
It's a terrible thing. But any political party that doesn't use all of the levers of power at their disposal to accomplish their objectives is stupid.
The filibuster is tolerable when used in a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of way. When used in the ordinary course, it basically just breaks the government.
It bothers me when you make vague sense like this.
Have the oppressors' henchmen showed up yet to fit you for your shackles, Mr. Nieporent?
I'm sure the nation's forges are firing up for the mass manufacture of same. Huzzah! The Rust Belt is saved!
Yes. Like I said before, flags fly forever. What's the point of governing if you're not going to usher in landmark legislation?
Besides, second terms tend to be lackluster and scandal-ridden.
At.
Gunpoint.
I think I agree with you. I am not fond of the "gain office in order to hold office" theory of electioneering.
The Teapers have been losing steam, perhaps this may rile them back up? The hard right has been in a state of fury since 11/08, it's hard to keep that sense of outrage up - especially when so much of it is divorced from reality- Obama is a socialist, the United State's experiment in democracy is dead, freedom is dead, the constitution is dead Obama has been an unmitigated disaster
You want an unmitigated disaster? Try Carter
Try Dubya:
We get attacked by one country- so he invades another
His predecessor balanced the budget- he completely unhinged it
The unemployment rate virtually doubled during his time in office
Greatly expanded surveillance of US citizens
His admin started the ATF "gun walking" operations ("Wide Receiver," later we had "Fast and Furious" under Obama Admin)
and don't get me started on other stuff...
Obama took over a bad situation and... meh, I'd say he hasn't made it (the economy) any worse
he's also continued (and sometimes expanded) bad Dubya policies (you give an executive power they are going to use it, they are not willingly going to give it up)
he's started disengaging from Dubya's wars- but has been taking his own sweet time in doing so.
Who is Obama? My stock answer has always been that he's a politician, aside from that, 3+ years in, I'm still not sure- was DADT repealed because that's what he believes in or was it simply because an element of his base wanted it? The recent immigration executive order? Ditto.
I am certain that he's not what the far lefties hoped for, or what the righties feared... but aside from that? What doe she really think or believe? I dunno.
Conservatives don't believe in states' rights either. States' rights is just an approved and tested conservative talking point.
This seems oxymoronic. Obama having coffee in the nude on the balcony with Lady Gaga, Charles Krauthammer, and four waxed shetlands would not make for a lackluster term.
Yahtzee! "States' rights" is just the empty bromide used to cover for "things the Feds do that we don't like," to be ignored completely when the Feds do things we like.
A myth which does not now and I predict will continue to have little to no basis in fact... as with the individual mandate, the subsidy/penalty line is rather generous. The line is 250 employees - and HHS/DOL have been handing out exemptions like candy where they've been requested.
Another way of putting it. Imagine that the president since 2009 had been Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton. Do you think much of substance would be different? I doubt it. I have vague hopes for Earth-2 that they might have been better on the economy, but I think it's a touch more likely they'd have caved on health care. In general, Obama governed just like the other elites of his party would have.
EDIT: Well, obviously with Gore maybe he chases a cap-and-trade policy. But that really just shows a way in which Gore isn't quite as much of a standard establishment Dem anymore.
No Conservatives believe in States Rights when "liberals" control the Federal Government, or when a "liberal" federal judge tells a state that its "conservative" law or policy is no good.
Conservatives emphatically do not believe in states rights when a "liberal" controlled state wants to do something at odds with a what a conservative federal administration wants.
Yes it would be "perfectly consistent" for a conservative states righter to be in favor of Romneycare and against Obamacare - but you rarely find such consistency-
just as the # of people complaining about the level of Government spending dramatically increases when a Dem is in the office- and dramatically declines when a Repub is on office- completely independent of actual spending levels...
Yes.
Some form of single-payer, at least providing a baseline coverage level, is coming -- whether people like it or not. At various points - certain services have been deemed necessary and proper to ensure available to all citizens... I can understand why, 200+ years ago -- getting mail was considered necessary and proper for all citizens while health care was not. Science -- and the world -- have advanced. This is not a new thing. Again - I keep coming back to EMTALA... We've already decided that access to a basic level of health care is something that should be guaranteed. You can spin it however you want - but society generally (and not just the US) have decided that if medical science has moderately easy way to see that you don't die from something that would have killed you a century ago, it will be provided.
All we're doing now is figuring out how to fund that.... ACA, if nothing else, says we're going to pay for it via the fashion outlined.
It may well turn out NOT to be the ultimate fashion, but make no mistake -- I'll even frame it liberal bashing terms -- people like that an entity gives them things, even if they and others are to be taxed for it.
I think Hillary may have done a better job anticipating the Repub's complete intransigence on everything (except defense spending)- and I'm not sure that would have made a difference... aside from that?
Gitmo? That was an unsolvable mess left by Dubya, closing Gitmo and bringing the prisoner's here? Complete and utter non-starter. Mass release? ditto, I really think the only solution was to patiently weed through the inmates releasing some and trying others as appropriate...
I think Obama was a bit too lenient on the heads of the financial industry, I think he handled GM as well as that could have been handled...
Immigration reform? I think that is unsolvable/unreformable in the current political climate- the know nothings can't get what they want, but they are powerful enough to prevent anyone else from doing anything- this was one case where even Nixon (Dubya) couldn't go to China.
Are you freaking serious? I think you need to pay a LOT closer attention to what's actually going on in the world these days.
I'll agree that providing wider health insurance to people was one of the goals of liberals. (I have all sorts of disagreements when we break that down, centering around the fact that people already had a baseline of coverage, and centering around who "could not afford" it and how we _should_ go about fixing whatever the problems were, etc., but I'll agree that in fairness Sam accurately stated one of the goals of liberals.)
However: Others of the goals of liberals with the ACA included power grabbing, redistribution of wealth, issues of "fairness" (fairness in the minds of liberals), etc. That point should be conceded as well.
This actually isn't that far from reality. I remember two years ago when Tea Party candidates town halls were in vogue around here that someone in attendance actually got up and yelled "just keep the damn government's hands off my Medicare." He was completely serious.
You mean like every other industrialized nation on the planet moving towards this in the last generation? Ever since Bismark's plan in the late 19th century -- the basic underpinning has been adopted by EVERY friggin' country on the planet... Can you name one that's rolled it back? Of course not - because none have. Some have nationalized the provider core itself. Some have nationalized the insurance schema. Some have simply regulated private insurers to the point of making them into utilities.
I think you need to a pay lot closer to what's going on in the world these days, but reality is a fair bit different from what you seem to think it is.... unless I missed Cameron moving to eliminate the NHS, Canada proposing to dump single payer, Switzerland eliminating the top and bottom zero-profit coverage requirement, Japan eliminating government negotiated payment rates, etc.
Which makes Barack Obama the rarest and most dangerous animal of them all: a socialist/royalist.
It's also true that bailout funds could have come with far tougher restrictions and requirements for firms that accept them, which could have included demands for various leaders to step down. (Those aren't the restrictions I'd have been advocating for, precisely, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for the government to do - if they're going to risk hundreds of billions bailing out these companies, at least don't have that money bet on the same guys that ran the industry into the ground.)
Not that I would necessarily advocate this (there were reasons for not doing so), but there could have been much more stringent requirements imposed on the executives of companies that received extraordinary bailouts under Obama.
EDIT: One thing worth remembering is that most of the financial sector bailouts came under Bush, rather than Obama. But there were extraordinary bailouts for some companies that took place (and continue to take place) under Obama.
If you think people hate the mandate.
Alas, it appears you missed the point, so let me elaborate.
Scenario 1. X says, "Lots of liberals live in bubbles." Y appears and protests that no, he does not live in a bubble. This amuses me, because Y is acting like an insecure prat. ('sup Lassus!)
Scenario 2. X says, "Hey Y, YOU live in a bubble." Y appears and either agrees or disagrees. This is not particularly amusing to me.
You see, the humor stems from when people rush to defend themselves against charges that have not actually been levelled against them, typically because they realize the truth of those charges as they apply to them. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need this broken down further.
Ummm -- ALL of the west has some form of national health care... I'm always tickled by "analysis" like this -- though, I find it somewhat amusing that both the TP set and the OWS sort of arrive at the same point from different directions.
The TP set chicken littles about nations being able to pay back UBS, Morgan Stanley, and yes - individual bondholders.
The OWS set chicken littles about nations having to pay back UBS, Morgan Stanley, and yes - individual bondholders.
...unless there's a debt ceiling vote, of course, in which case everyone switches seats.
The simple reality still remains that if someone borrows a thousand dollars and can't pay it back, that's a problem for him. If someone borrows billions and can't pay it back, that's a problem for the lender.
But in fact you were just trolling, waiting for people to make the obvious conclusion, and then playing your little mockery game. I should have learned a long time ago not to engage with you on these meta games you like to play.
Without endorsing this "logic", I think the argument would go that if the Supreme Court had overturned Obamacare, then some staunch anti-Obamacare folks might have been less enthused about the upcoming election and perhaps stayed home, since the most important reason for throwing Obama out of office - to overturn Obamacare - would no longer exist. Now, the only way to get Obamacare tossed is to elect Romney and a Republican Congress, so they can do so legislatively, which should whip up the Republican base and ensure strong Republican turnout in November. It makes some sense, I think.
I'm pretty sure that person was a plant.
The necessity to explain a joke is the failure of the teller, not the audience.
Huh, so this is the left's ultimate "solution" to the problem; they're going to say "f*ck you, we're not paying you back". Boy, I can't wait to see what the repercussions of that are going to be.
This is almost certainly true to some extent, and it's why I'm baffled whenever I see liberals actually refer to it as "Obamacare".
I'm not denying that there are plants, but in this instance I don't believe he was. I wish I could find the article.
The new spin on the Right (Hotair collective wisdom) is that because it was saved as a TAX, now they can paint Obama as a tax and spendocrat or something like that. Unfortunatley, they picked the absolute worst Republican candidate in the US to make this argument.
Excuse me as a dive back in to the fever swamp to get poop thrown at me.
Aha! If only they'd have been further investigated, everyone could have seen that they needed to be arrested, indicted, and prosecuted!
The base is getting all worked up in a lather...
The right are dusting off their old liberal court bashing campaign material (nevermind that some will be doing a 180, decrying the left's criticism of the court system as recently as... yesterday)
And I'm sure you are aware of confirmation bias? Some people (all people if we're not careful) will spin any piece of news- good, bad or neutral, in away that favors their side-
Obamcare overruled? That's good for Romney because it shows what a waste Obama's term has been, it show show Obama overreached etc etc.
Obamacare upheld? That's good for Romney because the base is really engaged now, they know what the stakes are, they can't rely on the courts etc etc.
The Repub problem now is that some provisions of Obamacare are starting to kick in- and future efforts at repeal are going to run into the fact that a repeal would be "taking away" something from some people- and that tends to engender a very negative reaction- Obamacare approval can stay at 40% but if those 40% start getting very passionate- while those opposed start getting less passionate- then Obamcare is going to get entrenched.
Regardless of whether this reinvigorates the anger-- "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine"-- the unfortunate thing for the GOP is that there is literally no person alive on planet Earth who is less suited to speak for the "repeal Obamacare!" cause than Mitt Romney. Obama even stole his suffix.
Why? The cognitive dissonance is strong with some folks... People Who Say They Are Moving To Canada Because Of Obamacare
Now if only you could find some people who say they are moving to the UK because of Obamacare
So now we're giving health care to plants, are we?!
FWIW, I know one person who has uttered these same sentiments (the 'hands off my' ones, that is) - they are old, angry, politically active, and hopelessly ignorant about pretty much everything. I don't mean politically everything, I mean everything everything - she's pretty messed up.
Irrespective of my own views and partisan desires on this issue, that is pretty amusing.
I guess it's possible that there were extensive investigations that turned up nothing and went unpublicized. That seems incredibly unlikely - the financial industry isn't run by people who wouldn't know how to get that story out - but I will say that it's not entirely inconceivable, and if it happened, good on Obama and Holder. but come on, it didn't happen.
Holy Onion Headline Not as Funny as Reality, Batman!
(I also agree with #599 - who can even tell?)
EDIT: You know what, the hashtags in those comments has me doubting Canadian origin, but who knows?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main