Liberal Bullshit

[NYcarbineer]

...I didn't work for the government, I worked for the state...

oh my. priceless

It is hard to beat Staph for stupidity.

Well, I hope she got her 10 years in working for the state so she gets a state pension out of it. Those state pensions are almost as good as government pensions, lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...I didn't work for the government, I worked for the state...

oh my. priceless

It is hard to beat Staph for stupidity.

Are You proud to be seen as a stupid troll. You and Carbin have nothing to add but insults

So says the person who starts a thread entitled 'liberal bullshit'.

 

[the_human_being]

did you not read the article dumbass? Get your head out of your ass. Most people's rates will only go up.

Rates go up every year. They are going up at a slower rate now than before the ACA was passed. Try again.

Correct rates have always increased and increased at a rate much higher then the inflation rate, at least the reported inflation rate. What did Obamacare do to curb any of the costs that drive the increase? Simple, force more people in so the amount of money going into the system is the same as if it did increase as much.

I heard on the news there was something like 77 new insurance companies (number might be wrong). Does anyone believe they started because of the goodness of their heart? No, they started because Obamacare made it very profitable for them to do so.

My thoughts are that for this one year when there are lots of new enrollees the rates will stablize. But once everyone is hooked in then they will go back to increasing as they always did, there is no cost containment.

So how do conservatives feel about Dr Ben Carson's approach to healthcare insurance companies and free markets.

==========================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.
This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care

This thread is about being lied to and kept in the dark by this administration to pass this Monster law on us called ObamaCare and now he's onto immigration reform. As if we need him reforming anything after, OScamCare

So it's wrong to bring up past deceptions that cost taxpayers a trillion more than they (and Congress) were told (Medicare Part D). And it's wrong to bring up a solution (which I like) by Dr Ben Carson to controlling healthcare costs?

73% of all those who have applied under the ACA are receiving subsidies. It's hard to fight it when 73% are sucking off the taxpayers' tit.

 

[hazlnut]

Quite a fitting word for them and these Progressives you are getting a taste of in this administration. Never put them in Power over us again

US?

You have nothing in common with a GOP Senator, probably little in common with most GOP Congressmen.

A newly elected TEA BAGGER congressman might have HAD something in common with you. But now they feed at a trough so immense, they've long forgotten your name.


But mostly you have nothing in common with the people who fund their campaigns and write their policy position papers.

Do you understand what that means?

They got your vote and now they are done with you.

 

[deltex1]

Bullshit...its what's for dinner at the white house.

 

[the_human_being]

Quite a fitting word for them and these Progressives you are getting a taste of in this administration. Never put them in Power over us again

US?

You have nothing in common with a GOP Senator, probably little in common with most GOP Congressmen.

A newly elected TEA BAGGER congressman might have HAD something in common with you. But now they feed at a trough so immense, they've long forgotten your name.


But mostly you have nothing in common with the people who fund their campaigns and write their policy position papers.

Do you understand what that means?

They got your vote and now they are done with you.

Spoken like a real 73%er. Supreme Court, don't you dare touch my tit, er, my subsidy.

 

[kiwiman127]

Rates go up every year. They are going up at a slower rate now than before the ACA was passed. Try again.

Correct rates have always increased and increased at a rate much higher then the inflation rate, at least the reported inflation rate. What did Obamacare do to curb any of the costs that drive the increase? Simple, force more people in so the amount of money going into the system is the same as if it did increase as much.

I heard on the news there was something like 77 new insurance companies (number might be wrong). Does anyone believe they started because of the goodness of their heart? No, they started because Obamacare made it very profitable for them to do so.

My thoughts are that for this one year when there are lots of new enrollees the rates will stablize. But once everyone is hooked in then they will go back to increasing as they always did, there is no cost containment.

So how do conservatives feel about Dr Ben Carson's approach to healthcare insurance companies and free markets.

==========================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.
This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care

This thread is about being lied to and kept in the dark by this administration to pass this Monster law on us called ObamaCare and now he's onto immigration reform. As if we need him reforming anything after, OScamCare

So it's wrong to bring up past deceptions that cost taxpayers a trillion more than they (and Congress) were told (Medicare Part D). And it's wrong to bring up a solution (which I like) by Dr Ben Carson to controlling healthcare costs?

73% of all those who have applied under the ACA are receiving subsidies. It's hard to fight it when 73% are sucking off the taxpayers' tit.

Considering wages have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades which equals out to less expendable income, the fact that 73% qualified for subsides should come to no surprise. Considering healthcare costs between 1999-2009 rose 131% before Obamacare came into reality. Now consider wages went up 38% in nominal dollars during that same time period. That's a lot stacked against lower income folks.
Maybe it would be nice if employers started paying their people as profits have NOT been the problem. If employers would pay their people wages that at least reflect a tiny bit of their profits, we wouldn't be having all these problems.
I'm not defending Obamacare (as I have never liked it), but damn it I am defending people who have been forced into this situation by something they can't control.

 

[ChrisL]

"Liberal Bullshit"

Typical of most conservatives, pointlessly complain about something while at the same time lacking the courage to offer a solution of their own.

You'll be ok. Remember it's was because of Your parties BS that they just got kicked out of power. tsk tsk

Translation: "I don't have any solutions other than to continue to support the bankrupting of American families so I will instead divert attention away from the fact that I have no solutions and offer more obfuscations."

Why couldn't they just have expanded Medicaid, and perhaps make a few ground rules for the insurance companies and also open up competition across state lines, like car insurance has done. Why did we have to have such a huge monstrosity of a bill? Why all the rules and stipulations on the American people?

 

[Stephanie]

"Liberal Bullshit"

Typical of most conservatives, pointlessly complain about something while at the same time lacking the courage to offer a solution of their own.

You'll be ok. Remember it's was because of Your parties BS that they just got kicked out of power. tsk tsk

Translation: "I don't have any solutions other than to continue to support the bankrupting of American families so I will instead divert attention away from the fact that I have no solutions and offer more obfuscations."

Why couldn't they just have expanded Medicaid, and perhaps make a few ground rules for the insurance companies and also open up competition across state lines, like car insurance has done. Why did we have to have such a huge monstrosity of a bill? Why all the rules and stipulations on the American people?

Exactly, but Obama needed a new Government program to put all his cronies to work at to oversee our LIVES. And we get to PAY FOR IT... I can not stomach that man as I hate a liar

 

[Zoom-boing]

At least the title was spelled correctly.

Not the brightest bulb in the array is she? And she consistently and proudly puts here stupidity on display for all to get a chuckle out of. Third-graders have a more extensive vocabulary, and their grammar and spelling puts her's to shame.

Uh, that would be you, Francis.

 

[Conservative65]

Quite a fitting word for them and these Progressives you are getting a taste of in this administration. Never put them in Power over us again

SNIP:
For progressives, the success of government programs takes a backseat to their own moral grandstanding.
By William Voegeli

• 
  Isn't saying Liberal Bullshit redundant?
  

The "Bully Pulpit" in action. (Win McNamee/Getty)


Comments
589
‘Bullshit” is American English’s assertion, maximally succinct and vigorous, that a contention is factually preposterous or logically absurd. According to philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt, however, the “essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony.” His slender volume devoted to the subject, On Bullshit, invites us to think of a Fourth of July orator “who goes on bombastically about ‘our great and blessed country, whose Founding Fathers under divine guidance created a new beginning for mankind.’” The speaker’s point is not “to deceive anyone concerning American history.” Rather,

what he cares about is what people think of him. He wants them to think of him as a patriot, as someone who has deep thoughts and feelings about the origins and the mission of our country, who appreciates the importance of religion, who is sensitive to our history, whose pride in that history is combined with humility before God, and so on.

It’s difficult to banish the glum suspicion that life in the 21st century, for all its economic and technological benefits, necessitates putting up with much more bullshit than our ancestors had to.
. . .
Frankfurt limits his discussion of bullshit to descriptive statements, analyzing and regretting our departure from the standard of truth. He does not take up the question of prescriptive statements, the mainstay of politics. Criticizing Republican proposals to cut spending on Head Start and other educational programs, for example, President Obama said, “We know that three- and four-year-olds who go to high-quality preschools, including our best Head Start programs, are less likely to repeat a grade, they’re less likely to need special education, they’re more likely to graduate from high school than the peers who did not get these services.”

The first part of Obama’s statement is not bullshit, because it does nothing worse than employ the politician’s constant companion, the selectively revealed half-truth.
Children who attend the best Head Start programs show positive results but, as we have seen, Head Start attendees overall are no better off than peers not enrolled in the program.

Obama invokes the sunny side of the law of averages without acknowledging its grim side: If children who attend the best Head Start programs do better than their peers, children who attend the worst programs must, necessarily, have developmental problems even more severe than those afflicting children in a control group who never enrolled in the program at all.


The more interesting part of Obama’s statement, for our purposes, is the generic political prescription, the assertion that government program X will solve problem Y. Prescription lends itself to bullshitting if, following Frankfurt, the prescriber has a lack of connection to a concern with efficacy.

Both kinds of bullshitters, de-scribers and prescribers, are more concerned with conveying their ideals, of which idealized understandings of their true selves are a central component, than with making statements that correspond scrupulously to empirical or causal reality. A bullshit description may be, at least in part, factually accurate, but any such accuracy is inadvertent. The accurate data were incorporated into the spiel not for the sake of correctness but because it helped express the speaker’s “values” or “vision.”

ALL of it here:
Liberal Bullshit National Review Online

Quite a fitting word for them and these Progressives you are getting a taste of in this administration. Never put them in Power over us again

SNIP:
For progressives, the success of government programs takes a backseat to their own moral grandstanding.
By William Voegeli

• 
  
  

The "Bully Pulpit" in action. (Win McNamee/Getty)


Comments
589
‘Bullshit” is American English’s assertion, maximally succinct and vigorous, that a contention is factually preposterous or logically absurd. According to philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt, however, the “essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony.” His slender volume devoted to the subject, On Bullshit, invites us to think of a Fourth of July orator “who goes on bombastically about ‘our great and blessed country, whose Founding Fathers under divine guidance created a new beginning for mankind.’” The speaker’s point is not “to deceive anyone concerning American history.” Rather,

what he cares about is what people think of him. He wants them to think of him as a patriot, as someone who has deep thoughts and feelings about the origins and the mission of our country, who appreciates the importance of religion, who is sensitive to our history, whose pride in that history is combined with humility before God, and so on.

It’s difficult to banish the glum suspicion that life in the 21st century, for all its economic and technological benefits, necessitates putting up with much more bullshit than our ancestors had to.
. . .
Frankfurt limits his discussion of bullshit to descriptive statements, analyzing and regretting our departure from the standard of truth. He does not take up the question of prescriptive statements, the mainstay of politics. Criticizing Republican proposals to cut spending on Head Start and other educational programs, for example, President Obama said, “We know that three- and four-year-olds who go to high-quality preschools, including our best Head Start programs, are less likely to repeat a grade, they’re less likely to need special education, they’re more likely to graduate from high school than the peers who did not get these services.”

The first part of Obama’s statement is not bullshit, because it does nothing worse than employ the politician’s constant companion, the selectively revealed half-truth.
Children who attend the best Head Start programs show positive results but, as we have seen, Head Start attendees overall are no better off than peers not enrolled in the program.

Obama invokes the sunny side of the law of averages without acknowledging its grim side: If children who attend the best Head Start programs do better than their peers, children who attend the worst programs must, necessarily, have developmental problems even more severe than those afflicting children in a control group who never enrolled in the program at all.


The more interesting part of Obama’s statement, for our purposes, is the generic political prescription, the assertion that government program X will solve problem Y. Prescription lends itself to bullshitting if, following Frankfurt, the prescriber has a lack of connection to a concern with efficacy.

Both kinds of bullshitters, de-scribers and prescribers, are more concerned with conveying their ideals, of which idealized understandings of their true selves are a central component, than with making statements that correspond scrupulously to empirical or causal reality. A bullshit description may be, at least in part, factually accurate, but any such accuracy is inadvertent. The accurate data were incorporated into the spiel not for the sake of correctness but because it helped express the speaker’s “values” or “vision.”

ALL of it here:
Liberal Bullshit National Review Online

Quite a fitting word for them and these Progressives you are getting a taste of in this administration. Never put them in Power over us again

SNIP:
For progressives, the success of government programs takes a backseat to their own moral grandstanding.
By William Voegeli

• 
  
  

The "Bully Pulpit" in action. (Win McNamee/Getty)


Comments
589
‘Bullshit” is American English’s assertion, maximally succinct and vigorous, that a contention is factually preposterous or logically absurd. According to philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt, however, the “essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony.” His slender volume devoted to the subject, On Bullshit, invites us to think of a Fourth of July orator “who goes on bombastically about ‘our great and blessed country, whose Founding Fathers under divine guidance created a new beginning for mankind.’” The speaker’s point is not “to deceive anyone concerning American history.” Rather,

what he cares about is what people think of him. He wants them to think of him as a patriot, as someone who has deep thoughts and feelings about the origins and the mission of our country, who appreciates the importance of religion, who is sensitive to our history, whose pride in that history is combined with humility before God, and so on.

It’s difficult to banish the glum suspicion that life in the 21st century, for all its economic and technological benefits, necessitates putting up with much more bullshit than our ancestors had to.
. . .
Frankfurt limits his discussion of bullshit to descriptive statements, analyzing and regretting our departure from the standard of truth. He does not take up the question of prescriptive statements, the mainstay of politics. Criticizing Republican proposals to cut spending on Head Start and other educational programs, for example, President Obama said, “We know that three- and four-year-olds who go to high-quality preschools, including our best Head Start programs, are less likely to repeat a grade, they’re less likely to need special education, they’re more likely to graduate from high school than the peers who did not get these services.”

The first part of Obama’s statement is not bullshit, because it does nothing worse than employ the politician’s constant companion, the selectively revealed half-truth.
Children who attend the best Head Start programs show positive results but, as we have seen, Head Start attendees overall are no better off than peers not enrolled in the program.

Obama invokes the sunny side of the law of averages without acknowledging its grim side: If children who attend the best Head Start programs do better than their peers, children who attend the worst programs must, necessarily, have developmental problems even more severe than those afflicting children in a control group who never enrolled in the program at all.


The more interesting part of Obama’s statement, for our purposes, is the generic political prescription, the assertion that government program X will solve problem Y. Prescription lends itself to bullshitting if, following Frankfurt, the prescriber has a lack of connection to a concern with efficacy.

Both kinds of bullshitters, de-scribers and prescribers, are more concerned with conveying their ideals, of which idealized understandings of their true selves are a central component, than with making statements that correspond scrupulously to empirical or causal reality. A bullshit description may be, at least in part, factually accurate, but any such accuracy is inadvertent. The accurate data were incorporated into the spiel not for the sake of correctness but because it helped express the speaker’s “values” or “vision.”

ALL of it here:
Liberal Bullshit National Review Online

 

[Conservative65]

Saying Liberal Bullshit is redundant.

 

[Conservative65]

what a whiner

Yes you are. There was no need for the pollster to say Liberal Bullshit. That's redundant. All he/she had to do was say Liberal or Bullshit and people automatically think of the other term.

 

[william the wie]

what a whiner

Yes you are. There was no need for the pollster to say Liberal Bullshit. That's redundant. All he/she had to do was say Liberal or Bullshit and people automatically think of the other term.

Truth is not PC.

 

[Conservative65]

what a whiner

Yes you are. There was no need for the pollster to say Liberal Bullshit. That's redundant. All he/she had to do was say Liberal or Bullshit and people automatically think of the other term.

Truth is not PC.

Doesn't mean the truth shouldn't be stated.

 

[Stephanie]

At least the title was spelled correctly.

Not the brightest bulb in the array is she? And she consistently and proudly puts here stupidity on display for all to get a chuckle out of. Third-graders have a more extensive vocabulary, and their grammar and spelling puts her's to shame.

Uh, that would be you, Francis.

They're a one trick pony troll and one ugly human being to boot

 

[william the wie]

At least the title was spelled correctly.

Not the brightest bulb in the array is she? And she consistently and proudly puts here stupidity on display for all to get a chuckle out of. Third-graders have a more extensive vocabulary, and their grammar and spelling puts her's to shame.

Uh, that would be you, Francis.

They're a one trick pony troll and one ugly human being to boot

Not to mention in denial about the worst mid term political ass whipping of US politics in more than a century.