What is the Democrat Party?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff is suggesting, correctly, that these assassination posts should not extend to all Democrats. Did he suggest the same thing with respect to the Tea Party? I don't know, but I don't see any national pundits talking about how disgusting the Democrats are for typing this kind of thing.

It was in fact one of the primary things that started me off against pimpdave.

[PLAYER57832]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

It's funny to read these and think about how the Tea Party folks were labelled as racist and out-of-touch with their Obama signs. Don't get me wrong, the people with those signs were shitty people and should be lambasted, but the lambastation (patent pending) extended to all Tea Party people and all conservatives. Woodruff is suggesting, correctly, that these assassination posts should not extend to all Democrats. Did he suggest the same thing with respect to the Tea Party? I don't know, but I don't see any national pundits talking about how disgusting the Democrats are for typing this kind of thing.

We did, but the difference is volume and responsibility. The Tea Party posters and such were appearing at events widely broadcast as Tea Party events, the only real "disclaimer" was that there was no official Tea Party. That's a cop-out.

In this case, it is a few random tweets. Tweets are very ephemeral, unlike posters that have to be created (even if quickly) and displayed. People say stupid things in quick tweets. There is no real pervasive pattern and its not tied to any real Democratic party. Its kids being stupid.
The pundits are not talking about it becuase there is no real question that these represent the Democratic Party. In the case of the Tea Party that very much was a question.. made more of a question because we kept hearing the Tea Party mentioned when convenient and the claim "there is no Tea Party" when inconvenient.

[thegreekdog]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

It's funny to read these and think about how the Tea Party folks were labelled as racist and out-of-touch with their Obama signs. Don't get me wrong, the people with those signs were shitty people and should be lambasted, but the lambastation (patent pending) extended to all Tea Party people and all conservatives. Woodruff is suggesting, correctly, that these assassination posts should not extend to all Democrats. Did he suggest the same thing with respect to the Tea Party? I don't know, but I don't see any national pundits talking about how disgusting the Democrats are for typing this kind of thing.

We did, but the difference is volume and responsibility. The Tea Party posters and such were appearing at events widely broadcast as Tea Party events, the only real "disclaimer" was that there was no official Tea Party. That's a cop-out.

In this case, it is a few random tweets. Tweets are very ephemeral, unlike posters that have to be created (even if quickly) and displayed. People say stupid things in quick tweets. There is no real pervasive pattern and its not tied to any real Democratic party. Its kids being stupid.
The pundits are not talking about it becuase there is no real question that these represent the Democratic Party. In the case of the Tea Party that very much was a question.. made more of a question because we kept hearing the Tea Party mentioned when convenient and the claim "there is no Tea Party" when inconvenient.

How about the Bush/Hitler signs or the Bush/Devil signs or when everyone at the capitol flipped the middle finger when Bush left for the last time?

[Night Strike]

We did, but the difference is volume and responsibility. The Tea Party posters and such were appearing at events widely broadcast as Tea Party events, the only real "disclaimer" was that there was no official Tea Party. That's a cop-out.

Was the "volume" due to an actual high number of those people or due to the media zeroing in and finding anyone who fit that preconceived idea?

[thegreekdog]

We did, but the difference is volume and responsibility. The Tea Party posters and such were appearing at events widely broadcast as Tea Party events, the only real "disclaimer" was that there was no official Tea Party. That's a cop-out.

Was the "volume" due to an actual high number of those people or due to the media zeroing in and finding anyone who fit that preconceived idea?

The latter, but you should know better. You should know that Player clings to the Democratic Party much like you cling to the Republican Party and no amount of logical, reasoned argument will sway her.

[Nobunaga]

In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been. Here’s the upshot: Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.


To illustrate this a bit differently, for every Jackson ($20) we’ve had available to spend under Obama, we’ve also borrowed a Hamilton ($10) and a Washington ($1) and spent those too. The only thing is that, under Obama, we’ve (literally) spent the equivalent of 342 billion Jacksons, 342 billion Hamiltons, and 342 billion Washingtons — borrowing all of the Hamiltons and Washingtons.

Let’s take a look at the scorecard, based on official government figures. In fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30), the federal government acquired $2.449 trillion in tax revenue and other receipts. It spent $3.538 trillion — 44 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1.089 trillion.

In fiscal year 2011 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.303 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts. It spent $3.603 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1.3 trillion.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah but everyone knows that you gotta spend your way out of the recession. Look at how the economy is booming right now. We just need more spending!

[Night Strike]

Yeah but everyone knows that you gotta spend your way out of the recession. Look at how the economy is booming right now. We just need more spending!

Our economy is in such a boom that gas prices have doubled in 4 years.

[Juan_Bottom]

Moody predicts that the economy will add 12 million jobs in the next 5 years.
BAZINGA!

[Nobunaga]

So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

(*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy)

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($69 million)*

AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.5 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

Abound Solar ($374 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Schneider Electric ($86 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

UniSolar ($100 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($10 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

[thegreekdog]

That's a good list Nobunaga, but you seem to have ignored that a Romney administration would have a similar list with different names. If Romney wins the election, let's come back in three and a half years and look at his list.

As a related aside, while I find it refreshing that a Republican is lambasting corporate welfare, I can't help but think about all the corporate welfare Republicans (and Democrats) have doled out over the years and wonder about the Republican's response. So, while I applaud your efforts, I can only hope those same efforts will be applied to Republicans in the future. That's the only way we're going to get this kind of crap to stop.

[MeDeFe]

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

If I owned a business, I would have the right to choose which coverage I want to pay for. You don't have the right to dictate that choice to me. Furthermore, there would be nothing denying you from using your own money to purchase anything that's not covered, so I wouldn't be denying you any rights to choose what medical care you want.

Let's say there's an accident at work, someone's foot is crushed, they need surgery and blood transfusions. Oh, blood transfusions are against the employer's religion? The employer doesn't provide coverage for such procedures? Well, I suppose the hospital will just have to bill the employee then.

[BigBallinStalin]

Profit and loss incentives.
Contract law.
Trial-and-error.
Reputation mechanism.
etc.

Therefore, your argument sucks, MeDeFe.

[MeDeFe]

Profit and loss incentives.

Possibly true, but irrelevant.

Contract law.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!111!

Trial-and-error.

wut?

Reputation mechanism.

Possibly true, but irrelevant.

Therefore, your argument sucks, MeDeFe.

Not nearly as much as NS's, though, which I was really just expanding upon.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are profit and loss incentives for both the employer and the employee irrelevant?
Does contract law encompass more than just 'freedom of religion'?
Trial-and-error means learning from one's mistakes and the mistakes of others--which applies to both the employer and employee. What effect do you think this has on the similar situations over time?
How is the reputation of the company irrelevant?

(I'd be surprised if you could accurately summarize NS' argument).

Your scenario is a one-time instance which ignores the process of change among people and their plans.

[patrickaa317]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/19/lee-iacocca-endorses-romney-for-president/

[Night Strike]

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

If I owned a business, I would have the right to choose which coverage I want to pay for. You don't have the right to dictate that choice to me. Furthermore, there would be nothing denying you from using your own money to purchase anything that's not covered, so I wouldn't be denying you any rights to choose what medical care you want.

Let's say there's an accident at work, someone's foot is crushed, they need surgery and blood transfusions. Oh, blood transfusions are against the employer's religion? The employer doesn't provide coverage for such procedures? Well, I suppose the hospital will just have to bill the employee then.

So that's comparable to providing coverage for an elective pill? Yep, really logical there.

[Frigidus]

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

If I owned a business, I would have the right to choose which coverage I want to pay for. You don't have the right to dictate that choice to me. Furthermore, there would be nothing denying you from using your own money to purchase anything that's not covered, so I wouldn't be denying you any rights to choose what medical care you want.

Let's say there's an accident at work, someone's foot is crushed, they need surgery and blood transfusions. Oh, blood transfusions are against the employer's religion? The employer doesn't provide coverage for such procedures? Well, I suppose the hospital will just have to bill the employee then.

So that's comparable to providing coverage for an elective pill? Yep, really logical there.

The argument that you're using is that a business can choose to cover/not cover things that their religious beliefs oppose. MeDeFe's example is an extension of this general principle. If you don't agree with MeDeFe's example you either need to demonstrate why your argument does not apply to this example or reword it (or you could just pretend this isn't the case and keep repeating the flawed argument, I guess).

[patrickaa317]

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

If I owned a business, I would have the right to choose which coverage I want to pay for. You don't have the right to dictate that choice to me. Furthermore, there would be nothing denying you from using your own money to purchase anything that's not covered, so I wouldn't be denying you any rights to choose what medical care you want.

Let's say there's an accident at work, someone's foot is crushed, they need surgery and blood transfusions. Oh, blood transfusions are against the employer's religion? The employer doesn't provide coverage for such procedures? Well, I suppose the hospital will just have to bill the employee then.

So that's comparable to providing coverage for an elective pill? Yep, really logical there.

The argument that you're using is that a business can choose to cover/not cover things that their religious beliefs oppose. MeDeFe's example is an extension of this general principle. If you don't agree with MeDeFe's example you either need to demonstrate why your argument does not apply to this example or reword it (or you could just pretend this isn't the case and keep repeating the flawed argument, I guess).

So if the business doesn't cover something that you would want covered, can you not opt out and get coverage on your own?

Why is it the business's responsibility to ensure you are satisfied with your coverage?

What if the business could choose not to pay for that additional piece of coverage but could make it available to you by proxy of taking the extra money to pay for that coverage directly out of your paycheck? That way the business isn't being forced to provide you something they do not believe in but you can still have it?

[patrickaa317]

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

[Night Strike]

This is what happens when the government decides what needs to be produced: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle

[Woodruff]

This is what happens when the government decides what needs to be produced: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle

So you'll be voting for Gary Johnson then? If not, then you really don't have much to complain about.

[Woodruff]

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

SOROS!!!!

[patrickaa317]

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

SOROS!!!!

[thegreekdog]

This is what happens when the government decides what needs to be produced: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle

So you'll be voting for Gary Johnson then? If not, then you really don't have much to complain about.

I really hope Night Strike thinks about this hard before he responds.

If someone is as ardently anti-government-spending as Night Strike supposedly is, he should be outraged by not just this corporate welfare, but all corporate welfare, including corporate welfare supported by the Republicans.