Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

Chichikov, I'm not trying to make much of a claim about Medicare. Like I said, I didn't want to get into whether or not Medicare paying some factor times a prevailing rate for some things is a good idea, and I wasn't asserting that Medicare was actually big enough to be problematic in the way I was describing.

What are you talking about when you say that Medicare pays "some factor times a prevailing rate for some things." You say you don't want to get into whether or not that is a good idea, but can we get into whether it is true? As I understand it, Medicare pays some factor less the prevailing rate. That's because Medicare pays based upon its own assessment of actual costs by the care provider, i.e., it effectively leverages monopsony power to dictate the price to the seller. This is why some doctors try to avoid taking Medicare patients, claiming that Medicare's payments are too small. (They really aren't; it's just that prices they can get in the private "market" are inflated.)

I'm just saying that, if you want to do things that way, you want to make sure that your program is never accounting for nearly all of the market, or else you'll be overpaying.

This may be true for something like voucher programs where beneficiaries are given coupons to spend as they like, but it is not true for programs where the government is the direct purchaser, and thus effectively a monopsony. Sellers have no leverage in that situation. Of course, there may not be many areas where we want to have the government as the sole purchaser of goods or services, but nevertheless it is an important exception.

 

[gcubed]

WaPo: Boom! Retail sales are way up. Maybe this economy is stronger than we thought.



Good news.

i love the quandry. Obama railing against the sequester and tax raises, but the economy is still improving. Republicans railing against job and economy killing Obama, but the economy is still improving.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well . . . that Christ guy was sure an asshole for curing people and raising them from the dead then! Those people made to Heaven and he drags them back to physical world such that they had to suffer more eventually had to die again.


BTW, it is funny that Al Franken is a now a Senator while Victoria Jackson is now crazy internet right-wing troll lady. I suspect she's banned from Fox News for being so bat shit crazy.

I doubt she's banned, there's simply no market for her shit anymore. That first tea party wave was all about proud declarations of anger mixed with stupidity, to appeal to the common elderly white man and woman. Her and other guests were basically saying "hey I don't know all the facts and I'm kind of crazy, certainly stupid on average, but gosh darn I love my country and I hate Obama." Well now that angle is pretty much over.

That's why Palin is gone too. Folks like Hermain Cain remain because he actually serves a purpose in terms of attracting a diverse audience (I know, I know but that's how they see it).

Basically the more republicans lose and the better the economy gets, the less tea party extremists matter to republicans.

 

[Oblivion]

I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican.

Is this a thing now on the Right?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I doubt she's banned, there's simply no market for her shit anymore. That first tea party wave was all about proud declarations of anger mixed with stupidity, to appeal to the common elderly white man and woman. Her and other guests were basically saying "hey I don't know all the facts and I'm kind of crazy, certainly stupid on average, but gosh darn I love my country and I hate Obama." Well now that angle is pretty much over.

That's why Palin is gone too. Folks like Hermain Cain remain because he actually serves a purpose in terms of attracting a diverse audience (I know, I know but that's how they see it).

Basically the more republicans lose and the better the economy gets, the less tea party extremists matter to republicans.

At least you don't have to worry about not being appreciated here. Your kind of crazy is always worth the price of admission <3

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican.

Is this a thing now on the Right?

His problem was that he believed in balance budgets because he was a numbers guy and came from the private sector. It's not that he slashed spending. It's that he refused to increase it in a time of economic trouble. He thought private spending should help out the unfortunate and people should not be dependent on the government. He actually did spend a lot. Where do you think the Hoover Dam comes from? Also, FDR attacked him for it on the campaign trail:

I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peacetime in all American history - one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer. We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary. In addition to this, we are attempting too many functions and we need a simplification of what the Federal government is giving the people.

I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues in this campaign. In my opinion it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

But I think the big thing that killed him was the tariff increase that he enacted, and the ones other countries did as well. Set back the recovery big time.

 

[codhand]

This is why some doctors try to avoid taking Medicare patients, claiming that Medicare's payments are too small. (They really aren't; it's just that prices they can get in the private "market" are inflated.)

Yep. $50 box of tissues anyone?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama did not promise the caucus that he would oppose raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare, an issue Harkin brought up during the meeting. "He didn't make a commitment," said Harkin, "but he seemed to indicate that yes, there are other ways of solving the entitlement problem without doing things like that."

"He said he hopes that we can reach some kind of grand bargain and, of course, some of us responded by saying, 'We don't want to start whacking away at Social Security and Medicare,'" Harkin said, warning against "some kind of grand bargain that pulls the rug out from underneath the elderly or the sick or needy."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ul-outreach-congress-152440791--politics.html

Not long ago Carney said raising the Medicare eligibility age was off the table. Now?

I'm confused over which party this is. I like the general idea of Murray's budget but it is essentially all tax revenue. The less democrats talk about benefits, the more republicans own the issue. I'm baffled no one (outside of the progressive caucus) seems interested in any ideas that strengthen Medicare or Social Security without cutting benefits. Really shows that democrats just want to protect the status quo; direct federal negotiations with drug companies, being able to buy generic drugs from Canada, etc don't sit well with big pharma therefore they don't sit well with democrats, plain and simple.

 

[Chichikov]

Where do you think the Hoover Dam comes from?

Coolidge signed the bill authorizing its construction and it was before the great depression anyway.

Edit: Hoover get the blame because he generally didn't think the government had a role in fixing the great depression, and up until 1932 he pretty much did nothing.
Also back then, people were less receptive to talks about the debt in the time of economic hardship (yeah, they were using the debt as an excuse to fuck the poor even back then).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

American liberal media is pathetic. Why even attempt to cater to the middle or right if they're going to dismiss you anyway.

I talked to Jonathan chait when he came to my class about this yesterday and his answer was basically cognitive dissidence. They've built up this credibility on being non partisan and always going between the party and that worked pretty well when the parties weren't as polarized but now they can't seem to come to grips with the fact one party agrees with the middle of the road consensus. So they've come up with these crazy reasons why the dems are just as bad.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Coolidge signed the bill authorizing its construction and it was before the great depression anyway.

Edit: Hoover get the blame because he generally didn't think the government had a role in fixing the great depression, and up until 1932 he pretty much did nothing.
Also back then, people were less receptive to talks about the debt in the time of economic hardship (yeah, they were using the debt as an excuse to fuck the poor even back them).

That is all true, but people think that Hoover was some kind of stingy president. He wasn't. FDR did wack him for overspending and nothing to show for it. Hoover just believe the solution had to come from the private sector which did not have the resources at the time. I also stated that his tariff increases were his biggest fault.

 

[TacticalFox88]

President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality was an historic occasion, but he also qualified it somewhat by suggesting that states should continue to decide whether to discriminate against their citizens. In an interview released this morning with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, the president indicated that his views on marriage have evolved even further. He now says that he cannot imagine how a state’s decision to discriminate against same-sex couples could be constitutional:

“Well, I’ve gotta tell you that — in terms of practical politics, what I’ve seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I — you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and — that it will work itself out,” he said. “On the other hand — what I also believe is that the core principle that people don’t get discriminated against — that’s one of our core values. And it’s in our Constitution.”
Stephanopoulos then asked whether Obama could imagine a circumstance wherein a state’s gay marriage ban could pass constitutional muster.
“Well, I can’t, personally. I cannot,” Obama responded. “That’s part of the reason I said, ultimately, I think that, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That’s my personal position. And, frankly, that’s the position that’s reflected — in the briefs that we filed — in the Supreme Court.”

This latest statement is exactly right. Marriage discrimination is unconstitutional because the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment — which was ratified after the Civil War for the specific purpose of limiting the states’ ability to discriminate — provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Constitution could not be more explicit that its protections against discrimination apply to state lawmakers.

Despite this clarity, the Obama Administration’s brief largely suggests a two phase process in order to achieve marriage equality for all. The brief argues that all states which currently provide civil unions or similar arrangement for same-sex couples should instead allow those couples to marry, while punting on the question of whether other states must come into compliance with the Constitution. At the same time, however, the brief also recommends a legal standard that would inevitably lead to marriage discrimination laws being struck down nationwide.

I give it five years before nationwide gay marriage is legal.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I give it five years before nationwide gay marriage is legal.

Five years? It could technically happen this year depending on the outcome of the following:

On March 26, the justices will hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, on the issue of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The justices have agreed to hear argument on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution bars California from limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. They will also consider whether those defending Proposition 8 have the standing necessary to do so.

On March 27, the justices are set to hear U.S. v. Windsor, about whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 violates the U.S. Constitution. Another question to be argued is whether the Congress&#8212;acting through the House of Represenatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group&#8212;can defend DOMA even though the Obama Administration agreed with a federal appeals court that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Here

Senate Democratic leaders have engaged in preliminary discussions about how to address Republican procedural obstruction, according to a senior Democratic aide, reflecting an awareness that key administration and judicial vacancies might never be filled, and that a watered-down rules reform deal the parties struck early this Congress has failed.

“The general agreement was that Republicans would only filibuster nominees in the case of extraordinary circumstances, and once again Republicans are expanding the definition of that term to make it entirely meaningless,” the aide said.

The source said conversations are still too preliminary for Democrats to lay out publicly potential avenues of recourse just yet. And the last thing leaders want is to create the expectation that they will change the filibuster rules in the middle of the current Senate session. But they are occurring in the wake of a series of GOP filibusters of top nominees, including a cabinet secretary (Chuck Hagel), the CIA director (John Brennan), and a federal judicial nominee (Caitlin Halligan) whom Republicans have effectively blocked from confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for years."

Though the Hagel and Brennan filibusters ultimately fell, and merely delayed the inevitable, they violated the spirit of the bipartisan rules reform agreement reached in January, which was effectively intended to allow the Senate leader to expedite normal business through the Senate.

There is more at the link. Freaking Reid you idiot!

 

[Chichikov]

That is all true, but people think that Hoover was some kind of stingy president. He wasn't. FDR did wack him for overspending and nothing to show for it. Hoover just believe the solution had to come from the private sector which did not have the resources at the time. I also stated that his tariff increases were his biggest fault.

He didn't cut spending, but that's mostly because Coolidge already cut it to the bone, but he didn't advocate higher spending (in fact he advocated exactly the opposite).
Only when the public opinions turned against him and the election of 32 loomed near did he start signing some bills to address the issues (with varying levels of reluctance).

The tariff theory never made sense to me, there were much bigger changes in tariff in history that didn't cause anything like the great depression (which was also happening in countries that didn't enact new tariffs) and I have never heard an explanation of the mechanism how they could even impact anything so quickly and dramatically.

 

[pigeon]

Here




There is more at the link. Freaking Reid you idiot!

I don't understand why this leak is even happening. Sure, Reid wants to tell the GOP there will be consequences. But what? He doesn't seem to actually have any consequences lined up. So why look stupid by leaking your intent to retaliate?

 

[empty vessel]

Here

Though the Hagel and Brennan filibusters ultimately fell, and merely delayed the inevitable, they violated the spirit of the bipartisan rules reform agreement reached in January, which was effectively intended to allow the Senate leader to expedite normal business through the Senate.

There is more at the link. Freaking Reid you idiot!

The Brennan filibuster most definitely did not violate the spirit of the bipartisan rules. The nomination was so extreme that Democrats should have filibustered under the agreement. That said, I support elimination of the filibuster.

 

[speculawyer]

I love the New Yorker and NY Times articles that are making fun of Ryan's plan.
How was this clown ever taken seriously?

I'm guessing the point of Ryan's sillyness is to stake out a ridiculous starting point for negotiations. Perhaps Obama should say "OK . . . I say we raise the tax rate to 90% like it was back in the 1950's for my starting point. Now let's negotiate."

 

[Averon]

Here




There is more at the link. Freaking Reid you idiot!

Why did Reid not expect this? What did he and other Senate Dems that watered-down filibuster reform see in this class of Senate Republicans that was substantially different from the previous Congress? They should NOT be shocked at all; this is standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. It has been since Obama took office! So the fact that they are surprised the GOP is still being obstructionist smacks of weak leadership and incompetence.

Senate Dems that help kill filibuster reform and is now whining about GOP obstruction should shut up. They are part of the problem.

 

[The Librarian]

No, you try to distract from the crux of their argument. It's like pro-life people asking a pro-choice candidate if they support killing babies. It's just a distraction and not getting to why people are pro-choice. Jamesinclair hasn't brought up the copper thing since October at least. You brought it up to demean him.

The crux of who's argument? Jamesinclair's? How is talking about the copper thing demeaning if he brought it up as a troll? I don't get it. He was joking around, and so was I.

Anyway, here's the CPC's "Back2Work" budget. They say it creates 7 million jobs in the first year (dunno if that's from the CBO or their estimates).

 

[RDreamer]

I'm guessing the point of Ryan's sillyness is to stake out a ridiculous starting point for negotiations. Perhaps Obama should say "OK . . . I say we raise the tax rate to 90% like it was back in the 1950's for my starting point. Now let's negotiate."

Obama needs to come out hard on it. Seriously, hold a press conference and ask if it's legitimately a joke. He needs to straight up say it's not something he can even take seriously, and explain precisely why.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why did Reid not expect this? What did he and other Senate Dems that watered-down filibuster see in this class of Senate Republicans that was substantially different for the previous Congress? They should NOT be shocked at all; this is standard operation procedure for Senate Republicans. It has been since Obama took office! So this fact that they are surprised the GOP is still being obstructionist smacks of weak leadership and incompetence.

Senate Dems that help kill filibuster reform and is now whining about GOP obstruction should shut up. They are part of the problem.

It's mind-boggling how Reid and company could be surprised by this, after four years of the same. I also cannot fathom how Reid might think any of his "threats" to do something about it at this point carry any weight. He talked big, then backed down - twice now (2011 and 2013). The GOP will not take him seriously, and neither should anyone else.

That was a bad way of asking why he's so invested in the topic.

I think it's safe to assume that anyone posting here has some interest in political discourse. I really don't think he needs to qualify himself.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's mind-boggling how Reid and company could be surprised by this, after four years of the same. I also cannot fathom how Reid might think any of his "threats" to do something about it at this point carry any weight. He talked big, then backed down - twice now (2011 and 2013). The GOP will not take him seriously, and neither should anyone else.

Who says he's surprised? I see no evidence he's not fine with the status quo like nearly every other senate dinosaur except Harkin.

Democrats need to start adding more activist, partisan senators like Warren, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc. If anyone is going to reform the filibuster it'll be them.

 

[The Librarian]

I think it's safe to assume that anyone posting here has some interest in political discourse. I really don't think he needs to qualify himself.

It was bad timing to ask that, and people are taking that in a manner I hadn't intended. I'm not from the UK or Canada, so I'm not really interested in what laws are proposed there, much less debating them in their respective political threads. So I was curious. He could be a far bigger "comparativist" than I. Or there could be some law in the UK that's floating around and it's similar. I dunno.

 

[kehs]

Obama needs to come out hard on it. Seriously, hold a press conference and ask if it's legitimately a joke. He needs to straight up say it's not something he can even take seriously, and explain precisely why.

He should do another one of these. I mean if Ryan can recycle things...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/daniel...dience-when-slamming-his-budget-plan-n1510576

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Who says he's surprised? I see no evidence he's not fine with the status quo like nearly every other senate dinosaur except Harkin.

Democrats need to start adding more activist, partisan senators like Warren, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc. If anyone is going to reform the filibuster it'll be them.

But Warren never would have been Senator had she and other voters listened to you when you said she didn't have a chance in hell.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

He should do another one of these. I mean if Ryan can recycle things...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/daniel...dience-when-slamming-his-budget-plan-n1510576

We're living in a feedback loop.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

The crux of who's argument? Jamesinclair's? How is talking about the copper thing demeaning if he brought it up as a troll? I don't get it. He was joking around, and so was I.

Anyway, here's the CPC's "Back2Work" budget. They say it creates 7 million jobs in the first year (dunno if that's from the CBO or their estimates).

Where did Jamesinclair mention copper yesterday? You brought it up, not him. And you did it in a way to dismiss his concerns over HSR. I don't know why either. Jamesinclair, like a lot of posters here, has a pet project: city planning with a focus on mass transit. He's just like EV with MMT and speclawyer with peak oil. The last time he mention copper was over a month ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47627230&postcount=10820. The rest of his post was a troll in comparing Obama to Bush, but no one addressed his concern over his pet project.

You could have done this in numerous ways instead of 'copper wiring lol.' One was to say that Obama should have gone an infrastructure bank route and let regional governments build the rail if they wanted it. This way funding streams don't get cut off by future Congresses. Another was to say that Obama has a lot of obligations. And though Jamesinclair prefers to keep infrastructure over anything else, his wishes lost out to those other obligations (probably Obamacare).

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

It was bad timing to ask that, and people are taking that in a manner I hadn't intended. I'm not from the UK or Canada, so I'm not really interested in what laws are proposed there, much less debating them in their respective political threads. So I was curious. He could be a far bigger "comparativist" than I. Or there could be some law in the UK that's floating around and it's similar. I dunno.

But you should be. UK in particular is very illuminating. There was the Downing Street Memo from when Bush was in office. There is Cameron's push for austerity that shows it doesn't lead to lower deficits. Focusing on US only politics limits your perspective.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Where did Jamesinclair mention copper yesterday? You brought it up, not him. And you did it in a way to dismiss his concerns over HSR. I don't know why either. Jamesinclair, like a lot of posters here, has a pet project: city planning with a focus on mass transit. He's just like EV with MMT and speclawyer with peak oil. The last time he mention copper was over a month ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47627230&postcount=10820. The rest of his post was a troll in comparing Obama to Bush, but no one addressed his concern over his pet project.

You could have done this in numerous ways instead of 'copper wiring lol.' One was to say that Obama should have gone an infrastructure bank route and let regional governments build the rail if they wanted it. This way funding streams don't get cut off by future Congresses. Another was to say that Obama has a lot of obligations. And though Jamesinclair prefers to keep infrastructure over anything else, his wishes lost out to those other obligations (probably Obamacare).

I also took part in the troll and the reason is that I get very tired of this false notion being preached that Obama failed to fulfill certain promises when doing so is 100% dependent upon Congress. James has done this many times. Its the equivalent of both sides are equally incompetent when it comes to budgetary issues or being on the side of the rich or equally obstructionist. James knows better but has and still does preach this story. Doing so nullifies my desire to respond to his concerns with an honest effort.

 

[pigeon]

Where did Jamesinclair mention copper yesterday? You brought it up, not him. And you did it in a way to dismiss his concerns over HSR. I don't know why either. Jamesinclair, like a lot of posters here, has a pet project: city planning with a focus on mass transit. He's just like EV with MMT and speclawyer with peak oil. The last time he mention copper was over a month ago: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47627230&postcount=10820. The rest of his post was a troll in comparing Obama to Bush, but no one addressed his concern over his pet project.

You could have done this in numerous ways instead of 'copper wiring lol.' One was to say that Obama should have gone an infrastructure bank route and let regional governments build the rail if they wanted it. This way funding streams don't get cut off by future Congresses. Another was to say that Obama has a lot of obligations. And though Jamesinclair prefers to keep infrastructure over anything else, his wishes lost out to those other obligations (probably Obamacare).

I generally agree that we should address people's actual points, but when you have a copper wire meltdown, people are going to snark at you about it forever. That's kind of on you for being crazy about copper wire. Next time choose a more respectable mineral.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Jamesinclair's least favorite character from The Wire is Bubbles

 

[gcubed]

I generally agree that we should address people's actual points, but when you have a copper wire meltdown, people are going to snark at you about it forever. That's kind of on you for being crazy about copper wire. Next time choose a more respectable mineral.

PD still get harassed for being wrong on just about any political prediction... and that happened before copper-gate

 

[rocketknight]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/gallup-presidential-poll_n_2806361.html

The USA Today, of all things, kicked Gallup to the curb in January. This is a pretty good article about it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

PD still get harassed for being wrong on just about any political prediction... and that happened before copper-gate

I think that's different though. I "get" the snark, it's due to a lot of fun had at the expense of the thread; although I do find CloverWestbrook's shit annoying, overall it's not a big deal. But Jamesinclair made one comment, didn't really dwell on it, and quickly moved on to other issues.

 

[RDreamer]

jamesinclair confuses me. I wrote him off as a troll a long while ago, but then he had some curiously normal posts in between and I just didn't know what to make of any of it.

I think that's different though. I "get" the snark, it's due to a lot of fun had at the expense of the thread. But Jamesinclair made one comment, didn't really dwell on it, and quickly moved on to other issues.

He definitely didn't do just one comment. There were at least a few troll posts for a while. I think I remember some weird Romney flipping California stuff in there somewhere. I honestly thought he was a joke character.

 

[gcubed]

jamesinclair confuses me. I wrote him off as a troll a long while ago, but then he had some curiously normal posts in between and I just didn't know what to make of any of it.




He definitely didn't do just one comment. There were at least a few troll posts for a while. I think I remember some weird Romney flipping California stuff in there somewhere. I honestly thought he was a joke character.

the infamous California gas price spike causing Romney to win CA.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I think that's different though. I "get" the snark, it's due to a lot of fun had at the expense of the thread; although I do find CloverWestbrook's shit annoying, overall it's not a big deal. But Jamesinclair made one comment, didn't really dwell on it, and quickly moved on to other issues.

And I found and still find your shit annoying especially leading up to the election so we're even. But as you said no big deal.

 

[Gotchaye]

What are you talking about when you say that Medicare pays "some factor times a prevailing rate for some things." You say you don't want to get into whether or not that is a good idea, but can we get into whether it is true? As I understand it, Medicare pays some factor less the prevailing rate. That's because Medicare pays based upon its own assessment of actual costs by the care provider, i.e., it effectively leverages monopsony power to dictate the price to the seller. This is why some doctors try to avoid taking Medicare patients, claiming that Medicare's payments are too small. (They really aren't; it's just that prices they can get in the private "market" are inflated.)

This is only true for some things. Also, I'm trying to get at a fundamental difference between a negotiated rate and a what I was calling "some factor times a prevailing rate". Yes, you could describe any set price as some factor times a prevailing rate, but you've got a potential problem when you peg the government price to a market price. Medicare doesn't negotiate for prescription drugs, for example. It just looks at the prevailing rate and adjusts it slightly. That would be a disaster as a universal program. It's probably way too expensive now.

I talked to Jonathan chait when he came to my class about this yesterday and his answer was basically cognitive dissidence. They've built up this credibility on being non partisan and always going between the party and that worked pretty well when the parties weren't as polarized but now they can't seem to come to grips with the fact one party agrees with the middle of the road consensus. So they've come up with these crazy reasons why the dems are just as bad.

First time I've been jealous of your class.

I'm guessing the point of Ryan's sillyness is to stake out a ridiculous starting point for negotiations. Perhaps Obama should say "OK . . . I say we raise the tax rate to 90% like it was back in the 1950's for my starting point. Now let's negotiate."

I'm all for the sort of thing Ryan's doing. Not in its specifics, obviously, but in laying out a dream budget rather than an attempt at compromise. This is how political negotiation should work. Democracy works much better when it's clear what the parties stand for. Obama shouldn't ask for 90% tax rates because he doesn't want 90% tax rates, but he should be clear about what he would pass if he had supermajorities in Congress. This is a key part of motivating voters for future elections.

 

[Black Mamba]

Fuck I'm hearin Obama is trailing in Ohio exit polling for the papal election.

Bad news for Obama.

 

[RustyNails]

Fuck I'm hearin Obama is trailing in Ohio exit polling for the papal election.

Bad news for Obama.

Pope Romney is running the perfect campaign.

 

[jamesinclair]

jamesinclair confuses me. I wrote him off as a troll a long while ago, but then he had some curiously normal posts in between and I just didn't know what to make of any of it.

Ive been here since 2005. Just because I dont enjoy sucking on Obama's balls doesnt mean Im a troll.

It seems to be standard protocol here where anyone with a different opinion gets harassed for months on end until they leave. I made one post about copper. It was a serious issue; Obama relaxed regulation to favor banks while potentially having a large negative impact on loyal government and local economies. I simply posted the article here and yes, I added a joke (rein of darkness). Apparently, questioning the dear leader's affinity to do whatever wall street wants was too much for some. It would be fair game to post that three months later that order has had no effect on copper pricing. It would be wonderful to see charts and such noting the pricing trends. Instead, the poster simply using that one point of discussion as every opportunity, no matter how loosely related.

It wasnt always that way in this thread.

As I mentioned last page, Ive begun to make use of the ignore feature, which should make my browsing here more enjoyable. What doesnt make sense to me is why someone who doesnt enjoy what I post replied to them continuously in an attempt to derail the thread. In any other thread, that poster would have been banned long ago, but the rules don't really apply in mega-threads, which is a shame.

He definitely didn't do just one comment. There were at least a few troll posts for a while. I think I remember some weird Romney flipping California stuff in there somewhere. I honestly thought he was a joke character.

I never said romney would win california, just that there was a very interesting correlation between gas prices in the state and election polls, at the time. No, I never ran a regression to see if it was significant or not.

 

[pigeon]

I never said romney would win california, just that there was a very interesting correlation between gas prices in the state and election polls, at the time. No, I never ran a regression to see if it was significant or not.

I have to say, without meaning offense, that I also thought your California gas price posts were indistinguishable from trolling. I feel bad about that now that I hear that you meant it! But I am still really confused as to what your theoretical argument was. As I recall it was that California's gas prices would go to $12 a gallon and Romney would win by double digits. You see why that was hard to accept!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ive been here since 2005. Just because I dont enjoy sucking on Obama's balls doesnt mean Im a troll.

It seems to be standard protocol here where anyone with a different opinion gets harassed for months on end until they leave. I made one post about copper. It was a serious issue; Obama relaxed regulation to favor banks while potentially having a large negative impact on loyal government and local economies. I simply posted the article here and yes, I added a joke (rein of darkness). Apparently, questioning the dear leader's affinity to do whatever wall street wants was too much for some. It would be fair game to post that three months later that order has had no effect on copper pricing. It would be wonderful to see charts and such noting the pricing trends. Instead, the poster simply using that one point of discussion as every opportunity, no matter how loosely related.

It wasnt always that way in this thread.

As I mentioned last page, Ive begun to make use of the ignore feature, which should make my browsing here more enjoyable. What doesnt make sense to me is why someone who doesnt enjoy what I post replied to them continuously in an attempt to derail the thread. In any other thread, that poster would have been banned long ago, but the rules don't really apply in mega-threads, which is a shame.

Pretty much the same reason ToxicAdam left for good. We do discuss some policy obviously but overall there's a clear Obama bias. Any outright negative Obama discussion is shot down as trolling or worse. Hell, Obama is trying to cut social security right now for literally no legitimate reason other than "I want David Brooks to take me seriously again" and no one cares.

 

[kehs]

I'm pretty sure people were jumping on you for the "thieves stealing streelights" more than anything.


Which as I'm reading the posts again, is rather humorous because a couple of posts up you mentioned not giving obama a single penny.

 

[jamesinclair]

I have to say, without meaning offense, that I also thought your California gas price posts were indistinguishable from trolling. I feel bad about that now that I hear that you meant it! But I am still really confused as to what your theoretical argument was. As I recall it was that California's gas prices would go to $12 a gallon and Romney would win by double digits. You see why that was hard to accept!

I just thought it was amusing because the dates lined up perfectly.....gas went up, romney went up, gas went down, romney went down.

To be fair, if gas prices had gone to $12, romney would have won. People blame the president for gas prices, and $12 would have been quite the october surprise. Never said that was going to happen though.

I'm pretty sure people were jumping on you for the "thieves stealing streelights" more than anything.

Which is actually a really serious issue at least in California.

Copper is stolen from streetlights, city cant afford to repair it, and neighborhood becomes dark and dangerous for months. On a local level, thats a big problem. Maybe thats not the case nationwide, but in California everybody knows that it has been a serious issue for a few years now - not Obama related, I was just concerned it would become worse.

 

[RDreamer]

Ive been here since 2005. Just because I dont enjoy sucking on Obama's balls doesnt mean Im a troll.

It seems to be standard protocol here where anyone with a different opinion gets harassed for months on end until they leave. I made one post about copper. It was a serious issue; Obama relaxed regulation to favor banks while potentially having a large negative impact on loyal government and local economies. I simply posted the article here and yes, I added a joke (rein of darkness). Apparently, questioning the dear leader's affinity to do whatever wall street wants was too much for some. It would be fair game to post that three months later that order has had no effect on copper pricing. It would be wonderful to see charts and such noting the pricing trends. Instead, the poster simply using that one point of discussion as every opportunity, no matter how loosely related.

It wasnt always that way in this thread.

As I mentioned last page, Ive begun to make use of the ignore feature, which should make my browsing here more enjoyable. What doesnt make sense to me is why someone who doesnt enjoy what I post replied to them continuously in an attempt to derail the thread. In any other thread, that poster would have been banned long ago, but the rules don't really apply in mega-threads, which is a shame.

I never said romney would win california, just that there was a very interesting correlation between gas prices in the state and election polls, at the time. No, I never ran a regression to see if it was significant or not.

Sorry, dude, I didn't mean to imply anything or insult you. You seemed like a newer person to PoliGAF at the time, simply because I hadn't seen you post much at all until some of those posts. If you had phrased some of the things like you did in this post I doubt I'd have much of a reason to dismiss you, but I do remember it coming off especially odd. Perhaps I just read it wrong, or perhaps it was just the environment of the thread at that time. I'm not sure. Maybe you just came too closely after a Diablos sky falling type post and it seemed like trolling in relation to that, too. I really can't say.

And it wasn't questioning of Obama that would do it. I've seen plenty of people questioning him and I didn't question whether they were serious or not. It was something about your tone and the extent at which your post seemed like hyperbole mixed perhaps with the fact that I had no idea who you were at the time or had any posting history/context to go with it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

https://twitter.com/LukeRussert/status/311910401644298240

truly the worst journalist

 

[el retorno]

Any news on the front runners for 2016 papal election?

https://twitter.com/LukeRussert/status/311910401644298240

truly the worst journalist

OMG they're talking about it now on MSNBC, this is stupid.

 

[Tamanon]

https://twitter.com/LukeRussert/status/311910401644298240

truly the worst journalist

Dem juicy nuggets of information.