General Political Thread

[Sir Stewart]

Drew Magary is the worst.

[Guest Jules]

nah

[Hixter]

Also it appears that 1.2 million people actually now have insurance directly because of ACA.

The actual number is 364,000. But that's just the number of people who have added a plan to their shopping cart, not actually paid for it. I've read that the about 5%-10% of customers have actually paid.

 

We should remember that:

 

1) If these numbers represent the low-hanging fruit (people who were uninsurable due to existing conditions) then the program is in deep trouble because it needs millions of young, healthy people to sign up to offset the people with expensive conditions. (Can we call them The Other 1%?)

 

2) More than 5 million people will lose their insurance, so a few hundred thousand is nothing to crow about. There's still time for things to turn around, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

A special shout out goes to Oregon which spent $300 million to build an exchange and has 44 signups.

 

Florida has had one of the highest, if not the highest, number of people signing up for health insurance through the ACA website. I believe the number is in excess of 300,000.

The actual number is 17,908.

 

Also, some polls indicated the last shutdown was more damaging to the GOP's polling than the Dems. 

Which is why I said that many Dems wanted a Round 2.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

The actual number is 17,908.

 

I promise I didn't pull that number out of my butt. Did I dream it? I read some article, briefly, yesterday before signing on here.

 

I see where your source comes from:

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/43413

 

Weird.

[uncool2pillow]

That's me. But I don't have you permanently on ignore. You're all right.

 

I love the feature, and wish more people used it. In fact, I never realized how many people I had on ignore until this morning! I would imagine there is a circle jerk of snarky remarks above your comment, and couldn't care less what they say. Some people enjoy being annoying, but I really prefer this thread for honest discussion, not firing off obnoxious comments. Life is too short for all that negativity.

 

By way of contrast, Hixter - with whom I disagree on just about any issue under the sun - is almost studiously polite on here, and although I may have inadvertently offended him with a comment here and there, I feel like if I met him, and we debated something, I would end up shaking his hand and walking away, saying, You're all right. In fact, although our world views are worlds apart, I think we could have a debate without it devolving into name calling or sarcasm. Sadly, that's not true for everyone, and I'm not innocent either. It's ironic that my getting angry with being attacked is viewed by some as puerile, while the snark and name calling is not called out.

 

I do find it alarming that there are so many people on a Wilco board who seem impervious to the issues of income inequality, and who apparently find it fun to view employees as if they should all be grateful just to have a job. Do these people know who Woody Guthrie is? Well, we have had that discussion before, and it's a waste of time, but I will be the first to admit that I take being employed somewhat for granted. I know that everyone is blessed to have work, to have food, etc., but I have never had a hard time finding work, due to my advanced degree, my experience, and, frankly, my work ethic. I have often been willing to take on humble jobs because I had rent and bills to pay. I never thought a particular job was "beneath me"...or if I did think it, it didn't stop me from working hard. I have had work consistently since 1994.

 

I've been on this board a long time, and have made some friends here. Some of them are now Facebook friends, and I've even had the privilege of getting together with someone before a Wilco show and hanging out. If someone disagrees with something I say, I have no problem with that. But once it devolves into something negative, I'm out. In my real life, as in the internet world, if someone wants to be rude to me, I'm having none of it. Peace to all.

 

I think when most people use humor in this thread, and on the board in general, it's usually to lighten the mood or to try to point out thinking or ideas they think is flawed through satire.  While it admittedly takes a personal tone from time to time, I think it's a waste of one's energy to get upset about what nearly anonymous people say about you.  

 

Also, as Don Draper pointed out, you're on pretty shaky ground with your claim of getting out once it gets negative.

[kidsmoke]

Look, gang, it isn't easy. ever, to discuss politics in a crowd. The topic is polemical by its very nature. Whatever political views you hold, it is likely that you've given them a lot of thought over a lot of years, and hold your own opinions strongly. It's the nature of the beast. 

 

Those of us who moderate here don't expect all of you to agree, especially in a political thread. What we do expect is a "live and let live" mentality that allows all of us to inhabit this space. There is enough blame to go around here, and many members have behaved badly and given in to ugly impulses. I ask now that all of you take several steps back and a few deep breaths, before wading back into this discussion. You may strongly disagree with another member...fine. If their comments make you see red, you always have the option of putting them on ignore, or even of not visiting this thread. If someone is actively on the attack, you don't get to retaliate within the thread, or bait the person. What you do get to do is utilize the report button so that the moderators can do their jobs. (Thanks, moderators.)

 

I've removed those posts that seemed to be the most offensive and/or baiting. Feel free to contact me or another moderator if you have a problem that remains unresolved, and we'll do what we can to help you resolve it. 

 

The sniping, snarking, and backbiting stops now or we retire this thread and possibly future political threads as well. Please make your points with civility or don't post. Continued baiting and attacks will result in suspensions.

[Guest Jules]

Okay

[Guest Don Draper]

Look, gang, it isn't easy. ever, to discuss politics in a crowd. The topic is polemical by its very nature. Whatever political views you hold, it is likely that you've given them a lot of thought over a lot of years, and hold your own opinions strongly. It's the nature of the beast. 

 

You should moderate for Congress.  In fact, I think they'd get a LOT more done if they had an ignore function.  Can you imagine if they just voted on stuff and didn't get to grandstand about it?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Thanks for your post, kidsmoke. I suspect that even some of our long-term members are either unaware of ViaChicago's rules and regulations, or haven't reviewed them in so long that they have forgotten them completely. I know I forgot myself in the fray. I have never hit that "Report" button before, but I'll keep it in mind. I certainly don't want someone feeling like they ought to report me.

 

It is our intention at Via Chicago to foster an online community that is welcoming, all-ages friendly, and enjoyable for all our membership. Toward that end, we expect all posts, including signature lines, to be civil and respectful. The following will not be tolerated:

• Personal attacks on other members.
• Baiting. Do not try to get a rise out of another member with your comments.
• Racist, sexist, inappropriate or threatening comments or excessive profanity.

[Hixter]

Obamacare has even lost the uninsured: Less than a quarter—24%—of uninsured Americans think the health care law is a good idea, and half think it’s a bad idea.

[twoshedsjackson]

Obamacare has even lost the uninsured: Less than a quarter—24%—of uninsured Americans think the health care law is a good idea, and half think it’s a bad idea.

Probably the same percentage who watch and believe Fox News (and who are so lonely they'll take part in phone surveys just to have someone to talk to) so I doubt they were ever his to lose.

 

Polls mean nothing. A huge chunk of our population is dangerously stupid, uninformed and determined to stay that way.

[Jcamp]

Clinton / Kidsmoke  2016 ...   haha

 

 Can I get a Second?    

[John Smith]

I know an individual who hates Obama. Fox/tea partier etc ... His family is saving $300/mo because his wife's employer is now required to cover all employees, she was formerly exempt from their plan. Anyhow he wanted to keep his plan that he felt was gold plated. (It wasn't ) now he has better coverage for less yet still hates the ACA. Oh well.

Btw my story is anecdotal and I still believe that the overall stats need to be looked at.

[Jcamp]

Our payroll taxes are an essential need to support our society. Corporate foreign investments should supplement our payroll taxes.

 

Quite simply, a corporate designation regarding taxation would realign global investments.

Let Capitalism Rule, just make the Corporations pay as much as we do.

Define what makes a Corporation's policies foreign and  add taxation to support society.

[KevinG]

At risk of having this thread being moved off the front page, let's talk about Duck Dynasty.  Unless you live under a rock or don't have a TV, you know what Duck Dynasty is and what it is all about.  Personally I have never watched the show because it looks so stupid.  

 

Anyway Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family said some pretty hateful things about homosexuals in a recent GQ article.  In light of that, Phil has been suspended indefinitely form the show.  Which in turn, brought several members of the far right (such luminaries as LA Gov Jindal and IRDB's favorite Sarah Palin) to decry A&E's action as a violation of Phil Robertson's first amendment rights.  

 

What I can't understand is how this could be a violation of the first amendment?  Yes, by all means Robertson has the right to say and stupid thing he wants, as we all do.  What is not in the constitution is the right to have a TV show.  A&E is not silencing Phil, they are just not allowing him to be on their show.  Exactly how are Phil Robertson's first amendment rights violated?

 

In a strange way it is a lot like what happened in this forum recently.  People said some things that were not within the values of the VC community (not hate speech, but just general nastiness to each other).  These things were removed (though no one was banned as far as I can tell).  The VC moderators removed the content, just as A&E removed Phil Robertson.  It is their forum they have the right to do with what they please.  A&E has a right to do with their show what they want.  

 

So anyone feel that Robertson's first amendment rights were violated?       

[bleedorange]

Of course they weren't. The general public (and some prominent politicians, apparently) has never understood what the First Amendment really means. This happens every time someone says something stupid or offensive.

[Doug C]

The government did not jail him for what he said, therefore his 1st Amendment rights were not violated. He is free to say what he wants. His employer is also free to sanction him because of what he said if they feel that it could harm their bottom line. It is hilarious that these tea party idiots don't recognize their god (capitalism) in action.

 

edit If I said to my classes the same things Robertson said, I'd expect to lose my employment. Also, what he said regarding blacks in pre-Civil Rights Louisiana versus today, is just as offensive to A & E's brand as the other drivel.

[KevinG]

Of course they weren't. The general public (and some prominent politicians, apparently) has never understood what the First Amendment really means. This happens every time someone says something stupid or offensive.

 

I was thinking about that.  It seems every couple of years this same thing comes up.  I remember it when Rush said somethings about McNabb on MNF and Imus, Hank Williams jr, and so on and so forth.  

 

Which then begs the question, why do people believe it was a violation?  There is so much hate supported through right wing media (worse things have been said then what got Robertson fired).  Maybe people on the far right actually think the first amendment also guarantees a forum to say what you want, because they hear it so regularly.  

 

Really, I guess where was Jindal and Sarah Palin when Alec Baldwin's MSNBC show got cancelled because he used a bunch of gay slurs?    

[bleedorange]

I was thinking about that.  It seems every couple of years this same thing comes up.  I remember it when Rush said somethings about McNabb on MNF and Imus, Hank Williams jr, and so on and so forth.  

 

Which then begs the question, why do people believe it was a violation?  There is so much hate supported through right wing media (worse things have been said then what got Robertson fired).  Maybe people on the far right actually think the first amendment also guarantees a forum to say what you want, because they hear it so regularly.  

 

Really, I guess where was Jindal and Sarah Palin when Alec Baldwin's MSNBC show got cancelled because he used a bunch of gay slurs?    

 

People hear the term "free speech" and then assume its meaning. Plus, others are always perpetuating the myth that free speech means that you have a right to say anything. Hate to say it, but most people in this country are not very bright. Maybe we're expecting too much of a populace to understand the actual meaning of the text of the First Amendment when it can barely name the three branches of government.

[Winston Legthigh]

People think it was a violation because they think any form of censorship = first amendment violation. 

[Doug C]

People think it was a violation because they think any form of censorship = first amendment violation. 

Exactly. To paraphrase bleedorange, most Americans are idiots (well, that was more Doug C/Bill Maher than bleedorange, as he was more diplomatic).

[Mr. Heartbreak]

When Martin Bashir does it, it's vile and disgusting, and he deserves to be fired.

When the ZZ Top dude does it, it's his first amendment right to espouse the values of persecuted fundamentalist Christians.

Get the difference?

[Atticus]

I wonder what kind of research he did to come to the opinion that vaginas are preferable to men's anuses.

 

All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups. [emphasis added]

 

this is better than fiction.

[Atticus]

 

Continuing to follow that playbook, Jindal also characterized Robertson’s suspension as a violation of the First Amendment, the constitutional guarantee that gives every citizen the right to say whatever he wants, without fear of the television network he stars on opting to no longer have him represent their carefully maintained brand.

 

LINK

 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I almost feel sorry for the people who feel obligated to defend this crap (Palin, Jindal, etc.). I mean, I am sure a few of them believe their own B.S., but for the most part it really sounds like pandering. It would be much smarter to just come out and say, "Well, that guy can be a real knucklehead," and be done with it, but no: have to defend it from a Biblical standpoint, a free speech standpoint, a fan of Duck Dynasty standpoint. It's kind of like Bill Maher defending Alec Baldwin, but much, much more public, and, of course, these are politicians doing it, not comedians.