Neo

Well, no, I wasn't. Speaking to my knowledge, and the passage of 8 years time, I know far less of what happened then. To the extent that it involved RNC staffers deleting their private emails, I'm not concerned. I delete private emails daily. To the extent that it involved elected officials or their staff using private email to avoid government servers, scrutiny and record retention, you have a point. I'll listen.

I'm not surprised you were. I was, too.

My understanding, admittedly limited but anecdotally consistent, is that insuring the previously uninsured has driven cost up and coverage down. It happened to me. Sample size 1. I am reading here that it didn't happen to others. The insurance companies say it happened. Insert the "trust the insurance company" vs "trust the government" argument here. Certainly, the greedy insurance companies are abandoning markets and plans. Why would the greedy do that? I am on the thinnest of expertise ices.

Thread: 'layers of people' around TP — THEY'RE PEOPLE! TELL THEM! — also: fookin' Battista May 23, 2015. 12:31 pm. Ink called me out.

Either she didn't (bad) or she chose the expedient debate route in the same fashion as our President (bad), just from the opposing angle. I can't consider a word for recognition if I have to look it up. That is my failing, not Buff's.

They did. They do. They always will.

Death Panels. I shook my head when I first heard the term knowing the inflammatory phrase would stifle, not advance, debate. I would have preferred "rationing" while recognizing even that neutral phrase could be painted with the broad fear brush instead of being painted by more appropriately fine brushes. This is an example of the right coining a phrase that limits debate. Ah, history and its consequences for today and tomorrow. Inflammatory or economically responsible language set aside, the issue remains. In the cost capped world of tax-payer subsidized anything, there has to be administrative guideline associated with who gets what. Administrative guidelines are put in place, in a national health care scenario, by the bureaucrats appointed by our representatives. Said another way, the rationing of health care will be systematically described by government agencies. Said by Sarah Palin, and paraphrasing here, "Death Panels will decide who gets care". We never debated the inevitability of rationing. Instead, our broad brushes painted over the issue. Ask Jonathan Gruber. Now, there's rationing in a private system, as well. The difference is the rationing is done based on cost, quality of life, and choice as determined by a physician, patient and insurance company all arranged by the patient in a competitive market where he or she has choice. Sometimes the choices are ugly, sometimes they're beautiful. In a public only system, the rationing is done based on cost, quality of life, and choice as determined by Washington guidelines. Neither system is a rosey panacea*. Each system has characteristics. Explain them to me and I'll choose. I'm the conservative sympathetic to health care for all. I say that knowing "death panels" are part of the deal. Denying that the concept of government guidelines, developed outside of the one patient, one doctor construct, isn't fundamentally embedded in the strategy does me no good. I've got a bum knee. An orthopedic surgeon told me to start thinking of a replacement "now, while you can still get one". That nod to rationing is the price I pay for knowing a 14 year old impoverished kid can get a rod in his leg if he breaks it skateboarding. I wanted the President to offer me that choice during the debate. Gruber advised the President to keep the dirty little secret to himself. Draw your own conclusion about leadership and transparency. *. Panacea! K9 is bringin' it this month!

I will explain that to my feminist friends. I may have misread the literature, but I don't think they agree.

Awesome! You got me. Again.

Thank you, both. However, before there are 11 linked posts, I do have my flaming moments! This group's tolerated my trespasses, by and large. Pre-emptive confession #42.

I sent payment for TWO ---- Neo and Legacy. Grateful all.

PastaJoe ... I am delighted you've joined the ranks of those outraged by the deletion of material from web servers. Just wait until you begin to focus on who deleted what! Your head's gonna spin!

It's nuanced.

I'm not sure I get the GWB reference. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Could GWB use language to shut down debate? Well, yes. Is the right capable of using language to shut down debate? Well, yes. Regarding the specific phrase and issue, it's been explained to me, here and elsewhere, that we all "know what it is, but don't want to inflame sensibilities by saying it out loud". That's my paraphrase, admittedly. If the left's side of the issue (using a phrase, or not) isn't about shutting down debate, what is the left's side of the issue about? Let's debate the phrase. Not being smart, and being a mouth breathing conservative with no appreciation for nuance, I'll ask. What is the explanation and when did he give it? I'll decide if I think it's sound. Nuance has come to mean "I don't want to talk about it so I'll refer to the topic as subtle and complex and hide in the shadows".

I missed the President's speech last night. I was working. I thought there'd be commentary, here. Was everyone busy or did no one find it post worthy? I'll watch tape tonight.

Can you say the GOP witch hunt was partisan and also say the issues (women in the work force; the juxtaposition of power between CEOs and interns; perjury; bad judgment) are real? Can you say those things without being a goose stepping lackey? I believe you can. I say the same about Watergate, Benghazi; abuse of power by the IRS, and Iran Contra.

I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do? I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots." The Ministry of Truth. We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course.

Either way, you're a boob man.

I tried the same cray-cray hat on. It didn't fit!

Laughing face emoticon. Years, here, and I still can't do 'em.

I agree with your conclusion. The Kardashians have accomplished the same thing.

You, too, may be on to something. For the record, I'd add it's one he wasn't born with, one he's built and monetized, and one I'd not mind having to leverage toward my goals (because celebrity, itself, isn't a goal of mine).

You may be in to it, here. That's a skill set I wouldn't mind having.

I am sitting at a poker table with two other players. They know all the cards in all the hands. I do not. My eyes shift from one, to the other, and back to the cards in my hand. The smart play is fold.

I'm not sure if you're not seeing that I'm agreeing with you, or you're simply making our point more strongly. I see no success skill set. That said, I've seen the born rich argument before. I don't buy that. Born rich doesn't make you a global brand. The man's done something.