Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

I read the NYT all the time and it's honestly fairly rare that I see anything egregious enough to post in here--even if NYT does have its share of neoliberals and terrible writers.

This one got my attention this morning, though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/daring-to-complain-about-obamacare.html?smid=pl-share

quote:

LOS ANGELES � THE Anthem Blue Cross representative who answered my call told me that there was a silver lining in the cancellation of my individual P.P.O. policy and the $5,400 annual increase that I would have to pay for the Affordable Care Act-compliant option: now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I�d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son�s long-term doctors and hospitals.

The Anthem rep cheerily explained that despite the company�s � I paraphrase � draconian rates and limited network, my benefits, which also include maternity coverage (handy for a 46-year-old), would �be actually much richer.�

I, of course, would be actually much poorer. And it was this aspect of the bum deal that, to my surprise, turned out to be a very unpopular thing to gripe about.

�Obamacare or Kafkacare?� I posted on Facebook as soon as I hung up with Anthem. I vented about the call and wrote that the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder. For extra sympathy, I may have thrown in the fact that I�m a single mom. (O.K., I did.)

Then I sat back and waited for the love to pour in. Or at least the �like.� Lots of likes. After all, I have 1,037 Facebook friends. Surely, they�d commiserate.

Except that they didn�t.

Instead, aside from my friend David, who attempted to cheer me up with, �My dad, who never turns down a bargain, would take the sex change just because it�s free,� my respondents implied � in posts that, to my annoyance, kept getting more �likes� � that it was beyond uncool to be whining about myself when the less fortunate would finally have insurance.

�The nation has been better off,� wrote one friend. �Over 33 million people who did not have insurance are now going to get it.� That�s all fine and good for �the nation,� but what about my $5,400 rate hike (after-tax dollars, I wanted to add, but dared not in this group of previously closeted Mother Teresas)? Another friend wrote, �Yes, I�m paying an extra 200 a month, but I�m okay with doing that so that others who need it can have health care.�

I was shocked. Who knew my friends were such humanitarians? Has Obamacare made it un-P.C. to be concerned by a serious burden on my family�s well-being?

The heated reactions even moved offline. Frustrated, I observed to one friend who was covered through her work that when an issue didn�t affect people directly, they became �theoretically generous.� Ask them to donate several thousand dollars so that the less fortunate can have medical insurance � which is exactly what President Obama is asking me to do � and I�ll bet they�d change their tune about �ending inequality� and �creating fairness� and �doing what�s good for the country.�

Refreshingly, the two people who showed real empathy were my insurance broker and my friend Nicole, who sent daily links to news stories about people who were also stripped of their coverage and mandated to buy expensive exchange or private policies without access to their current doctors, yet just missed the cutoff for subsidies.

There was one story about people suing Anthem for not being grandfathered in after changing their policies post-2010. In fact, it was in 2011 that I altered mine, dumping maternity benefits so that I didn�t have to pay for everyone else�s pregnancies. Little did I know I�d end up losing my insurance and paying for everyone else�s pregnancies.

There was even an article about a cancer patient who had lost access to her doctors. To her credit, Nicole refrained from saying, �But, Lori, this woman has cancer and you are so much more fortunate!�

Like Bridget Jones�s �smug marrieds,� the �smug insureds� � friends who were covered through their own or spouses� employers or who were grandfathered into their plans � asked why I didn�t �just� switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange, or marry the guy I�m dating. How romantic: �I didn�t marry you just to save money, honey. I married you for your provider network.�

Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn�t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it�s for the good of the country, a vast improvement �over all.�

And the �over all� might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it�s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very well � as long as yours isn�t the �fortunate� family that loses its access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it.

The truly noble act here is being performed by my friend Nicole, who keeps posting Obamacare fiasco stories on my Facebook page, despite being conspicuously ignored, except for my single �like.� It�s the lone �like� that falls in the forest, the click nobody wants to hear.

Lori Gottlieb is a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a psychotherapist.

I think this reader response sums it up pretty well:

quote:

My heart bleeds that the writer picked a policy without maternity care so that she "didn�t have to pay for everyone else�s pregnancies" and now she can't have it. I have no children but have to pay property taxes so everyone else's children can go to school. I rent, so if the writer owns a property (and I'm sure she does) I'm paying for her mortgage interest tax deduction. People without cars subsidize roads and highways. I also subsidize people on Medicare and Social Security, even though I'm more than a decade away from collecting.

As a man, I subsidize every woman's healthcare as it is far more expensive. Therefore I pay for the writer's OB-GYN, and I'll never use one.

It seems the writer is very worried about paying for other people's stuff. I guess she doesn't understand insurance. But if she or anyone on her policy gets sick, the amount she will have paid in premiums won't even be close to what she will receive in benefits, and I'm sure she would yell the loudest if she were denied any benefit that she wanted and feels entitled to.

It's telling, though, that she didn't publish a word about what other policies are available to her beyond the one she was pitched by Anthem. I guess she doesn't understand what salespeople do, either.

So, in essence, yes, it is out of vogue to complain about Obamacare when you literally don't understand how it works.

# ? Nov 11, 2013 22:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 02:38

The Dark One: Aug 19, 2005; I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!

This is only tangentially related to the article, but the walled garden approach in the US with insurance companies and doctors breaks my mind.

# ? Nov 12, 2013 00:17

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

Young, pro-intervention neo-cons usually have enough sense and grace to gently avoid or concede discussions of their own lack of military service. Its a level beyond to actually act offended and defensive about being called a chickenhawk when you advocate for others to die on your behalf.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/syria-chicken-hawks-and-non-interventionism/

quote:

Silly me, I decided to wade in late last night on the debate which was ironically raging on Twitter over whether Western powers should intervene in Syria.

It was ironically raging because one side of the debate is almost diametrically opposed to the other having an opinion on the matter.

And while I won�t bore you with my notions of moral imperatives, I figured this would be a good time to settle the score over some oft-repeated tropes designed to shut down or stifle the debate.

There are a lot of diverging opinions over the use of chemical weapons, many mockingly so, though the point remains: Why when Assad used tanks, bombs, bullets and other weaponry was it not prudent to intervene, but when he uses chemicals to cause death, it changes the ball game? Obviously this isn�t a numbers game anymore, but rather, something regarding the means, and the morality and danger surrounding that.

I think I, like few others, was swayed by this seemingly counterintuitive logic. Up until last week, you could have heard me in London cabs chatting to drivers about how it is too late for us to intervene. But the use of chemicals swayed me, and I though I cannot fully explain it, something about gassing people and causing prolonged and painful deaths rather than simply executing them marks a fundamental change in the nature of the civil war, and demands intervention.

But I digress into what I promised you I would not. My apologies. Back to the Twitter debates from last night.

It seems evident to me, as I�m sure many of my fellow �chickenhawks� have experienced, that whenever one advocates intervention, or indeed war, one is told to �join up and fight yourself then� or to �stop being an armchair general�. Something of that nature. You know what I�m talking about.

But this logic (it isn�t really logic, it�s a poor attempt at sophistry at best) is designed to end the debate, or to invoke the populism that hopefully still runs deep with regards to our armed forces. This of course, occurs at the very same time that hypocritical non-interventionists bemoan the lack of public support for British or American foreign involvements.

So here I am, a member of the public, supporting our actions abroad. But suddenly when I do, I�m a chickenhawk. Right�

Let�s drill down a little further. Apparently, encouraging me, a bespectacled, unfit, five-foot-eight writer to join the army is a solution to me having an opinion. So it surely must follow, anyway. But given that the army is not a democracy, what use would it do me, having my opinions, being in the army? If I�m so keen for our country to intervene, they say, I should join up and fight. But the point is they don�t want us to go to war � so I wouldn�t end up fighting by their standards anyway, right? Hmm.

Often added to this is another attempt at populism. Something along the lines of, �How would you explain to a soldiers� mother or father, husband, wife or child, that they died for wars abroad?�

Well, it might go something like this: �Your son/husband/father/daughter/wife/mother was an incredibly brave person who joined the armed forces knowing full well the implications of doing so. They took upon themselves the duties which the armed forces are known to have to shoulder on behalf of our country. That is, becoming involved in defensive or offensive wars, and indeed in foreign interventions. They will never be forgotten, and the lives that he or she gave up his or her own to save will stand as a testament to his or her bravery and responsibility.�

You know� almost as if saying that people who join the armed forces know that at some point they will likely have to put their lives on the line. By implying that they don�t, by invoking the anti-interventionist argument as above, armchair non-interventionists (see what I did there?) insult both those who have joined up to serve, and indeed their families. They insult their intelligence, their bravery, and their sense of public duty, not just to this country, but to humanity.

And that�s what it comes down to. In an effectively shrinking world, our armed forces are no longer single-purpose vehicles for defending our nation. Instead, we as a stronger country than most shoulder a global burden to prevent massacres, suffering and protect our vital interests abroad (and before you start, nowhere did I claim �democracy promotion� or �nation building� was a part of that).

If any of those opinions makes me a �chicken hawk�, then guess what? Cock-a-doodle-doo

Its one of the most condescending things I've ever read.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 06:05

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

El Negocio posted:

Young, pro-intervention neo-cons usually have enough sense and grace to gently avoid or concede discussions of their own lack of military service. Its a level beyond to actually act offended and defensive about being called a chickenhawk when you advocate for others to die on your behalf.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/syria-chicken-hawks-and-non-interventionism/

Its one of the most condescending things I've ever read.

Somehow, what bothers me the most is that Kassam doesn't know that a Chickenhawk is not a chicken.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 06:19

John Charity Spring: Nov 4, 2009; SCREEEEE

Raheem Kassam is a hilarious human being who paid to get fake twitter followers then complained that he wasn't satisfied with the result, and also has a setup that namesearches twitter for any mention of himself and responds to untagged criticism of his views or his own person sometimes within 30 seconds. I can't get enough of his idiocy.

# ? Nov 13, 2013 16:21

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

The one good thing that Kassam did was drive his former boss Robin Sheperd totally insane.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 04:03

platzapS: Aug 4, 2007

El Negocio posted:

Young, pro-intervention neo-cons usually have enough sense and grace to gently avoid or concede discussions of their own lack of military service. Its a level beyond to actually act offended and defensive about being called a chickenhawk when you advocate for others to die on your behalf.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/syria-chicken-hawks-and-non-interventionism/

Its one of the most condescending things I've ever read.

I'm not sure I understand the insult "chickenhawk". If you think more wars would be good for the country and the world, and you look at yourself and realize that you'd make a way better policy advocate than a soldier, there's nothing wrong with avoiding active duty. I think your politics are wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent or cowardly about it.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 06:06

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

platzapS posted:

I'm not sure I understand the insult "chickenhawk". If you think more wars would be good for the country and the world, and you look at yourself and realize that you'd make a way better policy advocate than a soldier, there's nothing wrong with avoiding active duty. I think your politics are wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent or cowardly about it.

Sure, you just happen to be advocating for a policy that will result in the deaths of some Americans, just not you ever.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 14:22

J.A.B.C.: Jul 2, 2007; There's no need to rush to be an adult.

SedanChair posted:

Sure, you just happen to be advocating for a policy that will result in the deaths of some Americans, just not you ever.

I think it's a bit more defined than that, because you can support military intervention without being a chickenhawk. It's when you see it as the primary tool of diplomacy/profit that you veer into that territory.

I think Rationalwiki spells it out fairly well.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 14:56

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

platzapS posted:

I'm not sure I understand the insult "chickenhawk". If you think more wars would be good for the country and the world, and you look at yourself and realize that you'd make a way better policy advocate than a soldier, there's nothing wrong with avoiding active duty. I think your politics are wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent or cowardly about it.

It's because you're too "chicken" to participate in your "hawkish" policies. It was a much more popular insult back when there was a draft, and used against people who had dodged the draft by various legal or illegal means while still supporting the wars.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 16:14

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Install Windows posted:

It's because you're too "chicken" to participate in your "hawkish" policies. It was a much more popular insult back when there was a draft, and used against people who had dodged the draft by various legal or illegal means while still supporting the wars.

Yeah: it was a Vietnam-era insult for those who thoughtlessly supported the war but actively avoided being drafted in a time when conscription was universal and supposed to be something everybody went through together. Avoiding the draft meant that you were sending someone else off to die in your place and dodging a responsibility that even those who didn't support the war took on.

# ? Nov 14, 2013 16:36

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Awesome, it turns out that my local free paper has a Rants & Raves section. It's actually has a few good ones (don't judge the homeless, gently caress the new privately owned train system expecting public funds, don't let your dog poo poo in my yard) and these

quote:

Too many on welfare

I have seen too many people on Welfare, who don't need to be on Welfare.
These people have expensive cars, and they can work!
Our country is hurting because this welfare is costing too much, and it puts pressure on the government.
When these people, who can work, live on welfare (and) take advantage of this system, it takes away from those of us who are on Disability.
The food stamps alone, that these people get, are selling their food stamps so they can get drugs or money!
I believe that the solution is to get these people to report on a monthly basis to show that they are trying to get work.
Even though I am only 59, I get Disablity because of the car hits I took.
I have the desire to work, but I cannot, because of the pains I experience.
However, these people who are on welfare, are healthy and can work.
While I was living in New York, they had a class where the people who are on welfare would go to, and in this class they can find work and get work!
Welfare should not be a permanent way of life.
Thank you for your attention.

quote:

Misbehaving children

I am very glad that finally a restaurant handled misbehaving children, since the parents had no control over them.
When people plan on dining out, they want to be able to enjoy their meal, especially since most of them had to make adjustments to their expenses to do so.
Parents are the ones who should be able to control their children and have them behave in restaurants, stores, churches, parks, etc.
I had four children, and they knew when to have fun and run around and when to behave.
Parents today feel that they should let their children do anything they want.
All this does is make children think that they are the only people they should worry about, and what they want is more important than respecting the rights of others.
Parents need to set and example for their children and bring them up as responsible adults, because most of our present young people are very self-centered and believe what they want comes first.

And my favorite

quote:

Oh, the 1950s!

I was just reading the newspaper, and I was reading about all the bad things about the 1950s.
Well, let me tell you this, I was a teenager during the 1930s, and believe me, the 1950s were a paradise by comparison.

I like to imagine that last one was transcribed since they have a phone number for people who can't email.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 02:47

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

J.A.B.C. posted:

I think it's a bit more defined than that, because you can support military intervention without being a chickenhawk. It's when you see it as the primary tool of diplomacy/profit that you veer into that territory.

I think Rationalwiki spells it out fairly well.

And I agree with their definition, and I actually agree with you that it can be reasonable to support military intervention without military experience. But there's a spectrum. On one end, you have Senators debating specific points of a Pentagon briefing, balancing ethics, national interest and political considerations. On the other end, you have Frederick Kagan, deep in the bowels of AEI, reading Jane's and masturbating.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 02:55

J.A.B.C.: Jul 2, 2007; There's no need to rush to be an adult.

SedanChair posted:

And I agree with their definition, and I actually agree with you that it can be reasonable to support military intervention without military experience. But there's a spectrum. On one end, you have Senators debating specific points of a Pentagon briefing, balancing ethics, national interest and political considerations. On the other end, you have Frederick Kagan, deep in the bowels of AEI, reading Jane's and masturbating.

That's depressing. Reminds me of when Robert Gates basically told Congress "Look, all these future carriers and super fighter jets are costing us way too much with little to no payoff, how about we stop?", and Congress basically replied by peeing on his face.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 08:25

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

"Chickenhawk" was also a popular insult during the Iraq War, which was planned and run by a bunch of former draft-dodgers.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 08:42

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

J.A.B.C. posted:

That's depressing. Reminds me of when Robert Gates basically told Congress "Look, all these future carriers and super fighter jets are costing us way too much with little to no payoff, how about we stop?", and Congress basically replied by peeing on his face.

How much safer would the US be if that money were spent on world history and area studies classes for enlisted soldiers and STEM-major officers?

# ? Nov 15, 2013 11:21

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK: Sep 11, 2008; Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick; Nap Ghost

J.A.B.C. posted:

That's depressing. Reminds me of when Robert Gates basically told Congress "Look, all these future carriers and super fighter jets are costing us way too much with little to no payoff, how about we stop?", and Congress basically replied by peeing on his face.

Jimmy Carter tried to stop an aircraft carrier in his budgets and Congress shut down the government.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 12:54

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

VideoTapir posted:

How much safer would the US be if that money were spent on world history and area studies classes for enlisted soldiers and STEM-major officers?

How much safer would the US be if they instead spent $30 billion a year to end world hunger. And yes, that's the UN estimate for total cost to end food insecurity for the roughly a billion people living in that state.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 13:22

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Orange Devil posted:

How much safer would the US be if they instead spent $30 billion a year to end world hunger. And yes, that's the UN estimate for total cost to end food insecurity for the roughly a billion people living in that state.

Probably not much, both because outside of Afghanistan the only food insecure nations appear to be central African nations who aren't that troublesome to our interests (Somalia is but it's not food insecure, interestingly enough) and that by giving away free food you're pricing poor people out of one of the most consistent sources of income.

edit: My data apparently only included "extreme" food insecure nations but even in the less extreme ones the latter point would still apply.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 15:01

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

computer parts posted:

Probably not much, both because outside of Afghanistan the only food insecure nations appear to be central African nations who aren't that troublesome to our interests (Somalia is but it's not food insecure, interestingly enough) and that by giving away free food you're pricing poor people out of one of the most consistent sources of income.

edit: My data apparently only included "extreme" food insecure nations but even in the less extreme ones the latter point would still apply.

That's a good reason why you wouldn't solve the issue in that way, which I'm pretty sure the UN took into account.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 15:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Orange Devil posted:

That's a good reason why you wouldn't solve the issue in that way, which I'm pretty sure the UN took into account.

Yeah but that's the traditional approach (e.g., "it's not a food production problem it's a distribution problem").

Looking through this report where the number appears to have come from, it seems that there is a focus on local initiatives but that worldwide investment is not just limited to "give them money to invest"; rather, that biofuels and food subsidies should end:

quote:

It all added up to a situation in which supply and demand were out of sync and exacerbated by the demand for biofuels. To deal with that problem, the distortions caused by subsidized foodstuffs and biofuels should be eliminated. Food stocks should be rationalized, and research boosted dramatically.

This would be unpopular in the US and other countries for a variety of reasons.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 17:48

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Call Me Charlie posted:

Awesome, it turns out that my local free paper has a Rants & Raves section. It's actually has a few good ones (don't judge the homeless, gently caress the new privately owned train system expecting public funds, don't let your dog poo poo in my yard) and these

And my favorite

I like to imagine that last one was transcribed since they have a phone number for people who can't email.

The misbehaving children one is 100% correct.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 18:57

My Q-Face: Jul 8, 2002; A dumb racist who need to kill themselves

computer parts posted:

Yeah but that's the traditional approach (e.g., "it's not a food production problem it's a distribution problem").

Looking through this report where the number appears to have come from, it seems that there is a focus on local initiatives but that worldwide investment is not just limited to "give them money to invest"; rather, that biofuels and food subsidies should end:

This would be unpopular in the US and other countries for a variety of reasons.

Maybe Not. I heard a story recently that Ethanol was not living up to its promise (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/study-ethanol-harms-environment-more-than-it-helps/),

"Politico posted:

On the pro-ethanol side: the renewable fuels industry, corn growers and many Midwestern lawmakers. On the anti-ethanol side: the oil industry, restaurant owners, livestock and poultry producers and, increasingly, a disenchanted environmental movement that no longer believes the plant-based fuel is a greener alternative to fossil fuels. In addition, a new generation of tea party Republicans � viscerally opposed to government mandates and fuel subsidies � has joined the fight against ethanol.

It seems the only people for it are those who are financially benefiting from it, if the Tea Party and Environmental Groups are both opposed, it may not last much longer.

Of course, that assumes that the Tea Party people won't get spiteful when Obama proposes reductions with an aim of eliminating ethanol production, and suddently run out to get Flexfuel and Bio-Diesel trucks.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 19:09

Xombie: May 22, 2004; Soul Thrashing Black Sorcery

fuckyougotmine.txt

The Columbus Dispatch posted:

I respond to the Nov. 5 op-ed column �People are dying because they lack health coverage� by Nicholas D. Kristof.

There are all types of issues when it comes to health insurance and finding people who did not use common sense pertaining to their health care and related necessary insurance coverages.

The experience of Richard Streeter of Eugene, Ore., is so typical. When his employer discontinued group health insurance in 2008, he had options. If he had quit smoking and applied the savings to a health-care plan, he most likely could have had health insurance.

The article stated he worked two jobs. With his work experience, I am sure he could have found employment elsewhere with health coverage.

Health insurance was a commodity that employers paid for. It provided sickness and accident coverage. Our health-care system kept adding more and more benefits requiring the insurance companies to add additional costs. Employers were faced with no profit to run their business and make payroll or discontinuing insurance coverage.

Our legislators created our current financial mess. Their Band-Aid approach to solving issues has not worked, period.

People will spend money on eating out, designer products, cell phones and the Internet. These take precedence over health insurance.

I am a licensed insurance agent and I specialize in employee benefits.

ARTHUR OLGIN

Howard

Xombie fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 16, 2013

# ? Nov 16, 2013 08:08

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

Xombie posted:

fuckyougotmine.txt

If you were forced to choose between cellphones and the internet or health insurance, who in this day and age could afford to go with health insurance? Between communicating with your employer by cellphone and email and taking care of the household and financial stuff that's all moving online, both have become pretty much a necessity. I honestly don't think I could hold down a job in my field if I told them that I could only be contacted by a landline (which very few people have now days, making cellphones even more crucial) and that I could only transfer computer files in person with a flash drive.

# ? Nov 16, 2013 09:01

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Xombie posted:

I am a licensed insurance agent and I specialize in employee benefits.

Now if he specialized in individual health insurance plans maybe his experience would grant him some authority in this case, as it is he's on exactly the same level as the guy he's bashing.

# ? Nov 16, 2013 12:20

little munchkin: Aug 15, 2010

cafel posted:

If you were forced to choose between cellphones and the internet or health insurance, who in this day and age could afford to go with health insurance? Between communicating with your employer by cellphone and email and taking care of the household and financial stuff that's all moving online, both have become pretty much a necessity. I honestly don't think I could hold down a job in my field if I told them that I could only be contacted by a landline (which very few people have now days, making cellphones even more crucial) and that I could only transfer computer files in person with a flash drive.

Yea, I don't really understand what point that guy is trying to make, and that first bolded line is a pretty dumb and wrong opinion, but "people choose cellphones and food/clothes over health insurance" is pretty truthful. I know a bunch of people without insurance, but I don't know anyone who's given up any of their other basic necessities to buy personal health insurance.

Big companies provide insurance because the law of averages means that someone's going to get sick, and having a healthy workforce means the insurance pays for itself. Individually it's like making an expensive bet that only pays off if you get cancer or crash your motorcycle or something.

# ? Nov 17, 2013 01:13

Lee Harvey Oswald: Mar 17, 2007; by exmarx

The homophobe bigots are up in arms in Chattanooga over the City Council approving benefits for same-sex partners.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/22/todays-culture-sure-has-changed-and-other-letters-/?opinionletters

quote:

Today�s Culture sure has changed

For this once being called the Bible Belt, things sure have changed, and the change has really caused this nation to go to the dogs. We can now tell it is the devil�s playground.

Christians should be ashamed of themselves for sitting by and letting a few ungodly people change things to suit themselves. I say to them if you don�t like the way things are done here, there are ships leaving every day.

Wanting to remove Bibles from our schools and having no prayer in our courts, yet giving out condoms, ungodly video games, ungodly marriage, it is no wonder our children are so messed up, our nation is so twisted.

Say no to wrongful marriages, no to dismissing prayer, no to removing the 10 Commandments, and before running for any kind of office, candidates should be tested to be sure they are smarter than a fifth-grader.

TERRY TAYLOR, Rossville

Pretty much the embodiment of :bahgawd:

# ? Nov 22, 2013 16:21

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

The homophobe bigots are up in arms in Chattanooga over the City Council approving benefits for same-sex partners.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/22/todays-culture-sure-has-changed-and-other-letters-/?opinionletters

Pretty much the embodiment of

What I don't get is why he cares so much. He doesn't even live there, hell he doesn't even live in the same state. Is it really going to kill him to go into town and see city workers that might be gay whose spouses might be getting benefits; how would he even know?

# ? Nov 22, 2013 16:49

Mo_Steel: Mar 7, 2008; Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together; Fun Shoe

Oh letter writers, please get your government schemes straight:

quote:

Katherine Kersten�s Nov. 17 column (�Met Council is mixed up on poverty�) was quite revealing and, frankly, downright scary. To think that the Metropolitan Council and federal Department of Housing and Urban Development can extort local governments to jam housing, racial quotas and �economic equality� down their throats under the �ThriveMSP 2040� program shows how out of control big government has gotten. Americans are in the midst of dealing with Obamacare, NSA spying, the IRS scandal, and all of this on top of the recent financial crisis, much of it perpetrated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (just study the Community Redevelopment Act). All of this on behalf of bigger government.

This is an unacceptable encroachment on our freedom and liberties as a free society � or are we one anymore? Perhaps it�s time to recall the words of Patrick Henry: �Give me liberty or give me death!�

Community Redevelopment Act, not the Community Reinvestment Act? :downs:

I guess while you're rewriting history you may as well change the names of programs to whatever you want.

# ? Nov 24, 2013 18:50

Rexicon1: Oct 9, 2007; A Shameful Path Led You Here

That dang ol Barackacare. Trying to take away my well earned carpal gains and sending Unmanned droids into Uzbekistan!

# ? Nov 25, 2013 08:02

Caros: May 14, 2008

Rexicon1 posted:

That dang ol Barackacare. Trying to take away my well earned carpal gains and sending Unmanned droids into Uzbekistan!

Clearly you mean uzbekibekistanstan. :colbert:

# ? Nov 25, 2013 08:45

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Why I left South Carolina:

quote:

Letter: Answers needed on Benghazi

�Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.� This hackneyed phrase seems most appropriate when applied to the Benghazi investigation, which all seems to point to President Obama himself.

Ever since the fateful night of Sept. 11, 2012, when four great Americans deserted in battle gave their last full measure of devotion, it seems that diversion has been the adopted strategy to cover the truth. Attempts have been made by congressional committees to uncover the truth.

They have sought answers from various administration officials when it is evident that one man that knew, or should have known, what was going on that night was the president, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; and he has shown no official interest in the investigation, except to divert attention from it.

An attack on an American embassy is an attack on the sovereignty of the U.S. and thereby an act of war. The questions that need to answered are:
� Where was the commander-in-chief that night, when the sovereignty of our nation was under attack?
� What orders were given in the ensuing hours?
� What part did he play in formulating the lies of former U.S. diplot Susan Rice?
� Who was responsible for the lies of the parents of the dead that day when their bodies were returned to Andrews Air Force Base where President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all engaged in deception? This night will live forever in infamy, not because of the destruction of the embassy itself, neither the loss of life, but because of the stench that attaches itself to betrayal of brave men dying in service to their country.

A.G. Blackmon
Warrenville

and the follow up comment:

quote:

Chas Cushman
Mr. Blackmon, I agree 100%. The Liar-in-Chief said just a few days after it happen that it was video that caused it. It is amazing how his stupid followers still support him, but then I guess that examples it. He is one evil S*B.

Been a while since I've seen a crazy Benghazi rant in the wild, but it still is disgusting.

edit: I looked at the archives, I shouldn't have done that.

quote:

Letter: Too many 'freeloaders' in the U.S.
President Obama, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Affordable Care Act author Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel� the brother of corrupt former Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel � have finally admitted their Affordable Care Act baby is ugly.

The federal Affordable Care Act exchanges have signed up only 27,000 with the state exchanges adding another 70,000 enrollees to date. However, many applicants are avoiding the Affordable Care Act by applying for free Medicaid through the various state programs, indicating a large segment of the U.S. population want free medical coverage, or coverage someone else pays for.

As the complexion of our country changes, more and more people are sacrificing freedom for free stuff. Since I am one of the 53 percent paying for your �free stuff,� I think that I have the right to tell you to get off your lazy butt and take care of yourself because I�m tired of footing the bill for �freeloaders� who don�t understand the value of freedom.

Dennis J. Chmiel

Aiken

quote:

Letter: Obama transforming country through lies and deceit
President Obama has made himself the proverbial, �public enemy No. 1� in the eyes of the American people.

He has lead this country through lies and deceit with an agenda to change our world into a plan taken right out of the playbook by Adolf Hitler. He has demonized anyone who would challenge him, making them the enemy, which is completely opposite of what he told the public when he was running for office.

He trivialized the Fast and Furious scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, the National Security Agency scandal and stated that they were nothing more than distractions made up by Republicans to detour the economy from coming back while totally ignoring the fact that he refused to accept responsibility for all and placing blame elsewhere.

His big healthcare plan to socialize medicine has all but destroyed any semblance of free will and the democratic way of life in this country. Like all civilizations that fell by the wayside, President Obama has taken our country to the brink of total destruction.

When Obama first ran for office, I could see that he could never keep the promises he made. Back then, I wrote to my elected officials and formally asked that they write up a new bill to have a formal job application for those running for the highest positions of office to protect us from incompetent politicians.

All I got back was lip service. Maybe now the powers that be will see the wisdom in making a change before another Obama gets to totally destroy our country.

Gregory J. Topliff

Warrenville

Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Nov 28, 2013

# ? Nov 28, 2013 23:32

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Every day is 'Buy Nothing Day' in North Korea�and look where that�s gotten them

Nick Gillespie, REASON Magazine posted:

Given that, I�m genuinely amazed at the pushback against plans by Walmart, Target, and other major retailers to open their doors on a day that everyone has off but no one has anything to do. Being disgusted by the willingness of stores to open for business on, what, the 10th or 20th most solemn day of the year isn�t just incomprehensible, it�s positively anti-American.

As Calvin Coolidge put it famously to a bunch of newspaper editors back in 1925, �The chief business of the American people is business.� Just as you can�t have Thanksgiving without a meal that fully no one actually enjoys (and a guest list that always seems only slightly less arbitrary, resentful, and ill-mannered than the manimals in The Island of Dr. Moreau), you can�t have a functioning free-market economy without massive amounts of shopping. Every day is �Buy Nothing Day� in North Korea and look where that�s got them.
...
What�s particularly ironic is that restraint of trade back in the days of Plymouth Plantation almost killed off the Pilgrims. Under the early guidance of William Bradford, the Pilgrims practiced a form of communism, in which everyone was expected to work for the common good. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and all that jazz. The predictable results, as Bradford notes in his classic account Of Plymouth Plantation, were chronic shortages in food, clothing, shelter. Indeed, the only thing that wasn�t scarce was bitching and moaning about how nobody was doing any work.

(MORE: Time to Surrender in the War on Thanksgiving)

Bradford and Plymouth�s elders switched course and liberalized economic regulation, giving each family land and the right to grow however much of whatever they wanted, which they could then keep or sell. The result? The new capitalist system �made all hands very industrious,� famines became a thing of the past, and people were generally happier (�gave farr better contente�).

Today�s puritanical, anti-commerce prudes�whether in the Massachusetts statehouse or the newsrooms of the nation�s elite journalistic outposts�would do well to reinvent the lessons of Gov. Bradford for the 21st century: Get to bed early on Wednesday, pick up a pre-cooked bird and as many sides as you can manage at a Boston Market, chow down in the car while driving, and roll into the Walmart parking lot by 9 a.m.

That is, if you want to do Thanksgiving right.

Of course, the number one problem with North Korea is that they don't shop on Black Friday. Secondly, where the Hell is this pilgrim myth coming from? Wasn't the change to prevent owners in the colonial joint-stock company from just lazing about and collecting money while the poor people did all the work (i.e. capitalism)?

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Nov 29, 2013

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:01

Rexicon1: Oct 9, 2007; A Shameful Path Led You Here

I piss on your grave Nick Gillespie

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Secondly, where the Hell is this pilgrim myth coming from? Wasn't the change to prevent owners in the colonial joint-stock company from just lazing about and collecting money while the poor people did all the work (i.e. capitalism)?

Also, this new thanksgiving myth is being almost entirely pushed by Rush Limbaugh. He's making up some wild nonsense, trying to sell his book and being a fat piece of poo poo (TM).

Rexicon1 fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Nov 29, 2013

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:04

Emden: Oct 5, 2012; by angerbeet

There's a kernel of truth to it, particularly that the early American settlers all had communal property at first and that they all eventually split up land and gave it to individual families. But as far as I can tell it was a use-rights system rather than private property, and that the suffering they went through had more to do with them landing a few weeks before winter or generally being in a cold, rocky hellhole. Not even going to mention the typical ahistorical uses of "capitalism", "liberalized economic regulation", etc.

Edit: VVV 30.5 Days is right. They had to have communal property for the first 7 years; that was part of the deal. Part way through those 7 years they split up the property so each family could work a piece (thus use-rights).

Emden fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Nov 29, 2013

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:20

Rexicon1: Oct 9, 2007; A Shameful Path Led You Here

Seriously though, in general, if you see a brand new, weird rear end political narrative being poo poo all over the internet, make sure to find out who is selling a book about it to find the source.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:24

Shalebridge Cradle: Apr 23, 2008

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Every day is 'Buy Nothing Day' in North Korea�and look where that�s gotten themopen their doors on a day that everyone has off but no one has anything to do.

This is amazing. If everyone has off then that means no one is working in those stores. So by making employees work on Thanksgiving you make it so plenty of people don't have off that day.

Also kinda great that being together as a family is nothing.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:26

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Here it is:

quote:

According to the ever-reliable Rush Limbaugh ... the original English settlers practiced a kind of collectivism is which all worked the land together and shared the proceeds; this led to bickering, thievery, idleness, and famine as the settlers refused to toil when they could not each reap the benefits of their own work. Only when they abandoned such dangerous socialist ideas and divvied up the land into individual privately-owned parcels did they at last enjoy a bountiful harvest . . . which is what we are actually celebrating at Thanksgiving. (Of course, no right-wing historical revisionism is complete without a conspiracy theory and a sense of victimization at the hands of the liberal elite: so it turns out that this "real reason for Thanksgiving" was "deleted from the official story," according to one widely circulated retelling that has appeared on tea party blogs.)

Actually, the first English colonists in Massachusetts and Virginia did work together, but this was neither the cause of their misfortune nor a reflection of any utopian, much less collectivist, spirit: the colonies were organized and backed by joint-stock companies of wealthy English merchants � and the settlers worked for the company. The real problem, though, was that the men recruited for Jamestown and Plymouth were expecting quick and easy riches without having to work at all.

Most of the participants of the debacle at Jamestown listed their occupation as "Gentleman," which was defined at the time as, "Whosoever can live without manual labor." John Smith kept desperately requesting that the company send men who possessed some actual skills and who were willing to get off their rear ends and work, but to no avail: "When you sende againe I intreat you rather send but thirty Carpenters, husbandmen, Gardiners, fishermen, blacksmiths . . . than a thousand such as we have." Likewise he advised the Puritans, planning their colony in Massachusetts, "One hundred good labourers better than a thousand such Gallants as were sent to me, that would do nothing but complaine, curse, and despaire, when they saw all things clean contrary to the report in England."

The "report in England" had promised nothing so much as a get-rich-quick scheme, and it was good old capitalist avarice, not socialist idealism, that propelled most of these "Gallants" to the New World. Poems, plays, books, sermons preached from pulpits in London all painted America as a literal "Paradise" where the natives cooked in pots and pans of solid gold, plucked emeralds and rubies off the ground..

So here's an alternative interpretation of the Thanksgiving story:

A bunch of overprivileged toffs, backed by off-shore capitalist speculators, expected to live idly off the work of others (when they weren't simply plundering treasure off the natives), and nearly starved to death from their own greed and idleness. (In Jamestown, they did starve to death.) Only when they faced up to the fact that they were going to have to work for a living, and threw off their foreign corporate masters, did they begin to prosper. And that is why we celebrate Thanksgiving today. The end.

Looks like there was a shortage of workers compared to "Gentlemen" and "Gallants."

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Nov 29, 2013

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 02:38

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

Basically every joint-stock settlement had a period of time in which things were more communal because it (surprise) made it more efficient to bootstrap the colony together if people were more worried about everyone surviving the winter instead of who owns what. This was, on paper, a temporary arrangement, and successful colonies were intended to transition to more traditional capital/merchantile as the colony got on its feet. Again, ALL joint-stock settlements. Every one. But this fact, combined with Jamestown's early troubles invents this thing where like, Jamestown has (more) communism, things are going bad, people are being lazy, later things are better and they have less communism. Therefore,

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »