Tea Party Haters
Display Avatars Sort By:
Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 11:59:42 MDT Print View

The similarities between the extreme left and right never cease to amaze me. Do you guys truly not realize how much you have in common with each other (edit) from a behavior standpoint?

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/25/2013 12:22:06 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 11:59:43 MDT Print View

e

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/25/2013 12:05:19 MDT.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:23:18 MDT Print View

Calling conservative America racist is like calling all liberals communists.
Just...stop...please.

"There conservative, there white, and they come from rural areas, so they must be racist, right?"
Get over these ridiculous prejudices.

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:24:35 MDT Print View

"BPL's official anti-liberal meme generator."

OK, a serious question about something that has long puzzled me:

It has always been my (admittedly subjective) observation that the types of memes in Matt's earlier post, i.e. wildly photoshopped, what I would call cruel and nasty, often misogynist, sometimes deliberate attempts to spread falsehoods (does anyone remember the widely circulated email years back that linked Hillary with some supposed criminal ancestor, which was totally made up but presented as absolute fact), are things I only see coming from the right side of the political spectrum. I don't include the bat**** photos that Ken H posted; in that the original photo is not doctored, and I have seen pages of those comparisons coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I am not pointing fingers at Matt's ACA "Shamwow", as I do see the humor in that one, and it is not in the same spirit as the others. I also am not referring to the work of comedians/impressionists on one side or the other, just to stuff in digital "print".

Some stuff I see from the left may be exaggerated, one-sided, sometimes inaccurate, as is plenty of stuff from the right, but I don't get emails circulated by left generated in the same vein of personal nastiness as the ones I've described above. I would think that I would see plenty of analogous lefty ones circulated amongst my group of email buddies if they existed, but I don't. Oddly, I do get sent many of the righty ones from friends who have friends on both sides. Am I just out of the loop, turning a blind eye, or overlooking something - are there an equal number of ugly things like that distributed by those on the left that I am not aware of? I know there was a lot of stuff about Sarah Palin back in the day, but what I saw pretty much just used her actual words against her, or poked fun at her hunting image.

I mean really, if you don't like Pelosi/Clinton/other female Dems why is it helpful to have a photoshopped picture of her with weird lipstick 'shopped onto her face to get people to agree with your political views, or to make up stories about her? Or post pics of Obama doctored to look like an African native/Nazi/devil? I don't get that. If you want to say something about their political views, fine, I can understand that. But posting pictures to make Pelosi look ugly, or implying she's a Christian baby-eater (I'm sure that's supposed to be witty somehow)? Are we supposed to take you or your political views seriously after that? Or is it just to make you feel good? ("you" meaning those who make and circulate these, not specifically directed at Matt)

Things like that disgust me and make it difficult for me to listen to viewpoints from the right. If the left is equally guilty of that sort of stuff, please enlighten me. But gently :) I don't mean to open up the floodwaters - please don't post a barrage of examples.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:31:48 MDT Print View

+1

I'm waiting for equally nasty liberal examples

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:41:03 MDT Print View

Justin, and where did I generalize that all Repubs were racist. I merely stated that there is racism amongst some members of The GOP. There are racists from all walks of life....but it seems odd that a lot of them vote for Republican. The Grand Ole Party is in crisis mode and the polls strongly support that. Now that our financial crisis has been pushed back, immigration reform is now front and center. Watch The GOP shoot themselves in the foot on this one again. Good luck supporting a party who's ideals are from the 50's. A value system invented by older, rich, white men. A party that canmot accept Obamacare, legalization of illegal immigrants, abortion (which I'm against, but have no right telling a women what to do), against gay marriage. ...etc. This countries demographics have changed beaver...it's not the fifties no more... thankfully

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/25/2013 12:41:48 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: internet memes on 10/25/2013 12:46:03 MDT Print View

Dk,

A result of spending 10 years in the Army and living in Washington, I'm fortunate (and I mean that) to have dear friends from both sides of the spectrum, some of which are on the fringe.

My experience has been...

Those from the left tend to surround lies or at the very least, factual inaccuracies with some truthiness. I’m see no shortage of memes coming from the left

Those from the right do this as well but also have no problem spreading out and out lies (eg Feds raided a Mormon Cannery, FEMA building secret concentration camps, DHS preparing to attack the U.S. with MRAPs, etc). The sad part, no one seems to care that these stories are completely untrue because they are clinging on to them to attack their opposition. To be fair, none of the right leaning memes I see on Facebook are nearly as bad as what we’ve seen here.

I think the demonizing at the political level has been pretty equal since 1994. Clinton, W, and Obama have their faults, but they've all done good things too. Try getting a kool aid drinking Democrat to give W any kind of credit for anything; same goes for a GOPer to Obama. Sadly, respectful discourse seems to be the exception and not the rule here.
.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 12:52:35 MDT Print View

@ken
Is this another satire piece you're trying to pass off as journalism?
Doesn't the racism game get old? It's like car alarms. I hear them so much, I never even raise an eyebrow anymore. You and people like you have conditioned me to the point where an actual racist act will likely be dismissed as the usual load of dung. Congrats.

You are definitely on the right team, please stay there.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Racism on 10/25/2013 13:08:53 MDT Print View

I just posted this on the other chaff thread, but I find it interesting as I loved the book The Tipping Point.

""Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point where one of his types - Connectors - were successful due to their larger than average number of close friendships and capacity for maintaining them which tie otherwise unconnected social groups together. According to these studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because many human brains are not adapted to working with large populations. Once a person's limit for connection is reached, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people."

Ian +1 on the PNW, where the skin color is homogenous, but the politics are not. There is more of a rural/urban divide.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Is the Right Racist? on 10/25/2013 14:33:02 MDT Print View

@Justin--

No, not all conservatives are racist. I don't think anyone said that, so you can please stop the straw man attacks, Brother. Likewise all the other whining about calling the right racist that I hear from others, e.g. Fred. (And it IS whining. Boo-hoo. Gee, I'll have to think about that the next time I see a caricature of Obama as a cannibal with a bone through his nose. At least the liberals don't whine about it when you call them communists.)

Hell, as I said, I'm a right-of-center moderate, myself.

But the RADICAL right most definitely has strong racist tendencies which, admittedly, they try like hell to hide. That's sort of why they are "radical." The problem is that there really aren't any moderate Republicans left at the federal level any more- maybe one or two senators, but certainly none in the House.

Do I mean ALL of them are racists? No, clearly not. Some for instance are just anarcho-libertarian whackjobs and don't care one whit about race. But many, many radical righties are (still, in 2013) racist bigots and/or mysogynists or antisemites, etc., and those who take common cause with them certainly do accrue some guilt by association. So, if you are giving a speech to try to make a valid point about fiscal responsibility and your "partner" takes the microphone after you and starts a racist rant, well, you sort of have to address that or you are complicit. That's why I personally DON'T want to take common cause with them. I find them repugnant.

If you can't accept/understand that, well, that's on you, not the rest of us.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 14:59:36 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 14:52:36 MDT Print View

@ Fred--

"You can't mathematically add more insured, mandate coverage options, and add a big layer of government employees to monitor it, compliance regulations etc., ... and make it cheaper over all."

Of course it can, if the efficiencies generated are significant enough. And the insurance industry is such a disaster that it just might be possible in this case. In particular, the ACA ended the defacto monopolies that allowed some insurance companies to jack up premiums on individual policies. (Again- if you are among the 80% or so Americans who get health insurance through an employer then you will probably see zero effect from the ACA.)

Look at it this way: does NO regulation lead to lower prices? The Objectivist whackjobs will try to say "yes", but the truth is no- we tried that in the 19th century and it led to monopolies and artificially HIGH prices. (Not to mention child labor, worker abuse, and in response it ultimately led to another idea that has outlived its usefulness- unions.)

So, somewhere there is a sweet spot. I'm a moderate, and I want to find it.

Also, you are missing another point. If the gains from actually having so many more people insured and thus actually paying for their own healthcare outweighs the drag from the increased regulation then, yes, that's a net benefit. By definition. And that is certain to be so if we can get enough "young invincibles" to sign up. (I understand that it actually won't take many- about 3 million.)

And- again- all of the *reliable* *nonpartisan* (CBO, Rand, KFF) analyses that I've seen point to, at WORST, a mild decrease of average premiums since the exchanges opened. You can regurgitate the propaganda that you've been fed about how horrible the ACA is all you like- you are entitled to your own opinion. Unfortunately, you are not entitled to your own facts. And, really, you're trying to make up facts. It's going to take a while before we have decent data about this.

But, meh, it's clear that we aren't going to convince one another. (Though I did at least slow Fred down at one point. :) I'm moving on. Enjoy your soapbox, gentlemen.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 15:09:48 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:29:36 MDT Print View

@ dean

"Of course it can, if the efficiencies generated are significant enough. And the insurance industry is such a disaster that it just might be possible in this case. In particular, the ACA ended the defacto monopolies that allowed some insurance companies to jack up premiums.

Look at at this way: does NO regulation lead to lower prices? The Objectivist whackjobs will try to say "yes", but the truth is no- we tried that in the 19th century and it led to monopolies and artificially HIGH prices. "

The insurance industry is already heavily regulated. It has been for some time, the same with my industry. It's not creating competition, but rather destroying it. The efficiencies you anticipate, will come from where... an additional 3% uninsured on insurance? If that group couldn't afford it to begin with, it's still coming out of someone's pocket. There is no free lunch here. It's like someone arguing to make home loans cheaper by lowering the interest rate and not understanding the big picture.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:42:17 MDT Print View

The efficiencies will come from all of the people who previously received no preventive care now getting it. That will save IMMENSE amounts, since you and I will no longer be paying for their *emergent* care, which is much more expensive, though granted it will be a while before we see this effect. Also, the previously uninsured people will now at least be contributing SOMETHING, however little, instead of you and I paying for ALL of it as we do now.

Yes, the subsidy system is squirrely- I'm not a fan either- but it's still a zero sum game, i.e. it's still just accounting. Despite however the savings get moved around afterwards, it's still a net savings. And if giving a bit more of those savings to the poor nonetheless results in me paying less, too, well, I guess I'm for it. (Because without the subsidies the poor wouldn't be able to afford the insurance, and would thus still be uninsured, and you and I would still be paying for their medical care.)

All of this assumes that we don't get into a "Premium Spiral" which, admittedly, is a risk, albeit low. That's why there are provisions in the ACA that are meant to prevent one.

I don't know how I can make this any more clear, which is why I'm pretty much done, now.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 15:58:20 MDT.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:48:46 MDT Print View

Dean is correct...it will save money on the lomg run.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 15:56:07 MDT Print View

You have assumed there will be no uninsured going forward and we are all getting on the prevention train. What color is your unicorn?

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:04:30 MDT Print View

My unicorn is both invisible and pink. What color is your Kool-Aid?

I assume no such thing- thanks for the straw man attack. AS I SAID, this all depends upon getting enough "young invincibles" to buy insurance. (You really don't look very wise when you argue by quoting something back to me that I've already said.) That is exactly what the ACA is trying to do.

It patently does NOT rely upon their being NO uninsured people. (That's nothing more than you trying to have your own facts, again.) There just needs to be "enough". And as said earlier, IIRC "enough" includes about 3 million previously-uninsured "young invincibles", which is far from an unattainable goal. But I'm not sure of that figure- I need to look it up again.

And, since the ACA makes almost all preventive services available without a co-pay (and many studies have shown that by far the single biggest factor leading to low participation in preventive services is a co-pay requirement) you'd have to be an imbecile not to take part in it. But, yes, I am painfully aware that there will always be imbeciles in the crowd. Presumably they wouldn't be a majority, though.

EDIT-- But, y'know, I just realized something. You may have done it in a very inarticulate way, but I think that what you meant to say was something along the lines of "I personally do not believe that enough previously-uninsured people will get insurance under the ACA to realize the magnitude of savings that you are implying." If that was in fact what you were trying to say then, well, that's ok- we are allowed to have differing opinions. I'm certainly no economist. If on the other hand you really don't understand how insuring the uninsured (and making them pay for some of it) might be beneficial, then, wow. I'm not sure what to say. I work in healthcare and it seems self-evident to me...

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 16:26:31 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:25:34 MDT Print View

Yes, AS I SAID, this all depends upon getting enough "young invincibles" to buy insurance.

7 million is what I've heard, from the uninsured pool, who statistically don't need insurance. Ponder on that a minute. We need 7 mil people to buy a service, that don't need it in the first place, to even begin to make this thing float. And that is likely underestimated, because we don't have a accurate cost on the fallout of this program and the estimates are historically low, but... I don't think it's workable, not even close. We are likely to be several billion in the hole before this thing ever gets started.

Stay healthy my friend

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 16:29:56 MDT Print View

"Stay healthy", as a national health policy has failed.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/25/2013 16:35:02 MDT Print View

Ah, yes. I was wondering when this argument would come up: "Forcing people to buy something that they don't need." From a personal liberties point of view, it isn't a bad argument, actually. If you want to prioritize that way, well, that's sort a personal moral decision. So we are all free to have opinions on it.

Here's the problem with it, though, as I see it:

COBRA.

If these uninsured people who "don't need insurance" were willing to sign a waiver to the effect that if they got unlucky and actually got injured or sick that they were then willing to quietly die in the street, THEN we could talk about personal liberty.

But they won't.

Instead, when that uninsured "young invincible" gets in his car wreck or develops leukemia he will, in fact, expect you and I to pay for his treatment, which we are forced to do under COBRA and similar laws. So he gets something for nothing, and you and I get screwed. And in fact we get screwed in the most inefficient and expensive way that could possibly be devised- via a hospital and an insurance provider, both of whom take a cut.

Mind you, I have no root objections to COBRA- the idea of letting someone die just because they are poor (a child, God forbid) is sort of repugnant to me. Thus, as things stand now, we need COBRA, and you and I end up paying for all of this. I (personal ethical call, here) think that having subsidized mandatory insurance is a better solution, because then MY personal liberties don't get infringed by being FORCED to pay so much for medical care for the uninsured... and thus COBRA is rendered superfluous as a side-benefit. (So, oddly enough, my support for the ACA has it's roots in my conservatism- I think the ACA makes more financial sense than COBRA. It's even more odd when you consider that I'm a flat-tax supporter.)

How's THAT for a personal-liberties argument?

It's also actually impossible to argue that someone really "doesn't need" health insurance. EVERYONE is at some degree of risk, even the young and healthy. Yes, their risk is lower, as indeed are their premiums. If you argue that everyone should be allowed the freedom to risk his health- well, as I mentioned, nobody really does that. Instead you and I pay for their medical care, and all they risk is bankruptcy. You may want to make that proud philosophical argument, but it simply isn't reality.

Here's the next argument you'll bring up:

"It is unfair that the healthy young people essentially end up subsidizing healthcare for older sicker people."

Wow, yeah. That is clearly a dastardly scam that can only be described as... insurance. :) (Quoting Colbert, there. Apologies.)

Personally, as a (relatively young) healthy person is it rather annoying to me that I end up paying for healthcare for some 70-year-old cirrhotic and vasculopathic turd who smoked and drank his whole life. But I could get catastrophically sick tomorrow- I am not immune. And if I get sick I want insurance. Thems the shakes.

Edited by acrosome on 10/25/2013 17:01:02 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/25/2013 16:35:48 MDT Print View

Teaparty healthcare policy:
1. Don't get sick
2. If you do get sick...
3. Die quickly