Who's losing their job?

[Capt Caveman]

Ron Paul at the end of the year. :biggrin:

 

[First]

I stated the facts. You say I made them up. Here's links to support my statement.

Social Security Vote
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html

Medicare Vote
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Republicans_voted_Yes_on_the_Medicare_Act_of_1965

If you have links to disprove what I said...now is a good time to post them.

Review what you originally said; you said Obamacare has been a paradigm shifts for businesses and the economy, in a negative way of course, as you were responding to a thread about Obamacare supposedly causing significant job losses (or whatever the OP troll was attempting to say, who really knows). Then, someone (accurately) claimed the right has continually had this same criticism of social programs throughout history, listing the examples SS and Medicare. You then bring up the false (and irrelevant) argument that because some people on the right voted for these programs, that therefore his claim was false.

That's the part I'm calling bullshit, which I'll link for you below since you're clearly very poorly informed about American history.

Anyway, as was well known at the time, New Deal legislation were very popular populist ideas that politicians essentially had to support out of necessity given the depths of the Great Depression in 1935, as clearly shown below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

"The New Deal faced some vocal conservative opposition. The first organized opposition in 1934 came from the American Liberty League led by conservative Democrats such as 1924 and 1928 presidential candidates John W. Davis and Al Smith. There was also a large but loosely affiliated group of New Deal opponents, who are commonly called the Old Right. This group included politicians, intellectuals, writers, and newspaper editors of various philosophical persuasions including classical liberals and conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans."

Lots of conservative web sites, such as the one referenced below, will admit this well known reality of business and conservative leaders opposition to SS for many many years:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/opponents-of-the-quotcrown-jewelquot/

"Historians today like to emphasize the opposition to Social Security by business groups and leaders. Blinded by the pursuit of power and mammon, they were the only Americans shortsighted enough to oppose aiding the poor and elderly. To a large extent it was business leaders who understood the consequences of imposing a tax on labor during a massive economic contraction. Taxes are almost always an economic drag, especially during a recession. Former head of General Motors and FEE board member Alfred P. Sloan declared, “Industry has every reason to be alarmed at the social, economic and financial implications [of Social Security].” Looking to profit and longevity and not votes, the business community was in a better position to evaluate the effects of the employer’s and employee’s “contribution” to Social Security.

In early 1935 James A. Emery, chief counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, appealed to the House Ways and Means Committee to rethink its push for national Social Security legislation. He argued that the Social Security bill before Congress would “discourage employment rather than encourage it.” Why would the federal government raise taxes on business in the midst of a recession? According to Emery, “General recovery depends on our ability to enlarge our production, to employ more people, and to cut down and not raise up the price of goods. Every time we increase the price of goods in a diminishing market, we are diminishing the possibility of employing other men, because we are making it more difficult, not less, to sell goods. Until we can market goods, we cannot employ men.”

The case for Medicare is just as clear; http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/07/29/170887/medicare-44/?mobile=nc

"At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

Ronald Reagan: “f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]

Also, I never said that Dems wanted to "reform" Medicare into a private voucher program. You just made that up. Reading comprehension appears to be a lost art.

Yeah, I know buddy, it's a type of rhetorical writing style that's very popular these days. I was making the clear case that Dems by and large want to reform Medicare in very basic ways like age of eligibility and means-testing. Most Repubs in DC want to voucherize Medicare, as clearly delineated by their votes on modified versions of Paul Ryan's original roadmaps from H.R. 6110 and 4529 in prior years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan#Budget_proposals

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Review what you originally said; you said Obamacare has been a paradigm shifts for businesses and the economy, in a negative way of course, as you were responding to a thread about Obamacare supposedly causing significant job losses (or whatever the OP troll was attempting to say, who really knows). Then, someone (accurately) claimed the right has continually had this same criticism of social programs throughout history, listing the examples SS and Medicare. You then bring up the false (and irrelevant) argument that because some people on the right voted for these programs, that therefore his claim was false.

That's the part I'm calling bullshit, which I'll link for you below since you're clearly very poorly informed about American history.

Anyway, as was well known at the time, New Deal legislation were very popular populist ideas that politicians essentially had to support out of necessity given the depths of the Great Depression in 1935, as clearly shown below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

"The New Deal faced some vocal conservative opposition. The first organized opposition in 1934 came from the American Liberty League led by conservative Democrats such as 1924 and 1928 presidential candidates John W. Davis and Al Smith. There was also a large but loosely affiliated group of New Deal opponents, who are commonly called the Old Right. This group included politicians, intellectuals, writers, and newspaper editors of various philosophical persuasions including classical liberals and conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans."

Lots of conservative web sites, such as the one referenced below, will admit this well known reality of business and conservative leaders opposition to SS for many many years:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/opponents-of-the-quotcrown-jewelquot/

"Historians today like to emphasize the opposition to Social Security by business groups and leaders. Blinded by the pursuit of power and mammon, they were the only Americans shortsighted enough to oppose aiding the poor and elderly. To a large extent it was business leaders who understood the consequences of imposing a tax on labor during a massive economic contraction. Taxes are almost always an economic drag, especially during a recession. Former head of General Motors and FEE board member Alfred P. Sloan declared, “Industry has every reason to be alarmed at the social, economic and financial implications [of Social Security].” Looking to profit and longevity and not votes, the business community was in a better position to evaluate the effects of the employer’s and employee’s “contribution” to Social Security.

In early 1935 James A. Emery, chief counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, appealed to the House Ways and Means Committee to rethink its push for national Social Security legislation. He argued that the Social Security bill before Congress would “discourage employment rather than encourage it.” Why would the federal government raise taxes on business in the midst of a recession? According to Emery, “General recovery depends on our ability to enlarge our production, to employ more people, and to cut down and not raise up the price of goods. Every time we increase the price of goods in a diminishing market, we are diminishing the possibility of employing other men, because we are making it more difficult, not less, to sell goods. Until we can market goods, we cannot employ men.”

The case for Medicare is just as clear; http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/07/29/170887/medicare-44/?mobile=nc

"At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

Ronald Reagan: “f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]



Yeah, I know buddy, it's a type of rhetorical writing style that's very popular these days. I was making the clear case that Dems by and large want to reform Medicare in very basic ways like age of eligibility and means-testing. Most Repubs in DC want to voucherize Medicare, as clearly delineated by their votes on modified versions of Paul Ryan's original roadmaps from H.R. 6110 and 4529 in prior years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan#Budget_proposals

Could you offer the problem with 'voucher-ising' the program?

 

[IGBT]

The easiest benchmark for this is the National Unemployment Rate, if it goes up then layoffs are out pacing new hiring, if it goes down then new jobs are replacing the lost ones.

you forgot the new category..full time jobs retrograded to part time with no or greatly reduced benefits due to your obama band aid care.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Review what you originally said; you said Obamacare has been a paradigm shifts for businesses and the economy, in a negative way of course, as you were responding to a thread about Obamacare supposedly causing significant job losses (or whatever the OP troll was attempting to say, who really knows). Then, someone (accurately) claimed the right has continually had this same criticism of social programs throughout history, listing the examples SS and Medicare. You then bring up the false (and irrelevant) argument that because some people on the right voted for these programs, that therefore his claim was false.

That's the part I'm calling bullshit, which I'll link for you below since you're clearly very poorly informed about American history.

Obamacare is a paradigm shift for businesses and the economy...this is a fact. A fact that you apparently have difficulty accepting. You've poured meaning into my words that was well beyond my intent and you're calling me on bullshit? The irony here is that you've accused me of making up shit and then go into rationalizing your convoluted thought process based purely on your made up shit. Wow.

Anyway, as was well known at the time, New Deal legislation were very popular populist ideas that politicians essentially had to support out of necessity given the depths of the Great Depression in 1935, as clearly shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
"The New Deal faced some vocal conservative opposition. The first organized opposition in 1934 came from the American Liberty League led by conservative Democrats such as 1924 and 1928 presidential candidates John W. Davis and Al Smith. There was also a large but loosely affiliated group of New Deal opponents, who are commonly called the Old Right. This group included politicians, intellectuals, writers, and newspaper editors of various philosophical persuasions including classical liberals and conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans."
Lots of conservative web sites, such as the one referenced below, will admit this well known reality of business and conservative leaders opposition to SS for many many years:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/opponents-of-the-quotcrown-jewelquot/
"Historians today like to emphasize the opposition to Social Security by business groups and leaders. Blinded by the pursuit of power and mammon, they were the only Americans shortsighted enough to oppose aiding the poor and elderly. To a large extent it was business leaders who understood the consequences of imposing a tax on labor during a massive economic contraction. Taxes are almost always an economic drag, especially during a recession. Former head of General Motors and FEE board member Alfred P. Sloan declared, “Industry has every reason to be alarmed at the social, economic and financial implications [of Social Security].” Looking to profit and longevity and not votes, the business community was in a better position to evaluate the effects of the employer’s and employee’s “contribution” to Social Security.
In early 1935 James A. Emery, chief counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, appealed to the House Ways and Means Committee to rethink its push for national Social Security legislation. He argued that the Social Security bill before Congress would “discourage employment rather than encourage it.” Why would the federal government raise taxes on business in the midst of a recession? According to Emery, “General recovery depends on our ability to enlarge our production, to employ more people, and to cut down and not raise up the price of goods. Every time we increase the price of goods in a diminishing market, we are diminishing the possibility of employing other men, because we are making it more difficult, not less, to sell goods. Until we can market goods, we cannot employ men.”

Social Security Act of 1935 - Republican Vote
House
Yes-81
No-15
Senate
Yes-16
No-5

No matter how you want to spin or twist it...Republicans voted overwhelming for Social Security.

The case for Medicare is just as clear;
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/07/29/170887/medicare-44/?mobile=nc
"At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:
Ronald Reagan: “f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]
Republicans were divided on Medicare as were Democrats to a lesser degree.

Medicare Bill of 1965
House - Republican Vote
Yes-70
No-68
House - Democrat Vote
Yes-237
No-48
Senate - Republican Vote
Yes-13
No-17
Senate - Democrat Vote
Yes-57
No-7

Medicare passed with bipartisan support. Deal with it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...defazio-says-medicare-passed-virtually-no-re/

Hell...even the majority leader of the House had issues with Medicare.
"Democratic chairman, Wilbur D. Mills, opposed the idea of government-funded health care. In fact, Mills proved a tough sell in 1965 until some of his own pet proposals were added to the legislation. One of those — the addition of a voluntary, supplemental health care plan — had its roots in a Republican alternative bill."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...laims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/

Yeah, I know buddy, it's a type of rhetorical writing style that's very popular these days. I was making the clear case that Dems by and large want to reform Medicare in very basic ways like age of eligibility and means-testing. Most Repubs in DC want to voucherize Medicare, as clearly delineated by their votes on modified versions of Paul Ryan's original roadmaps from H.R. 6110 and 4529 in prior years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan#Budget_proposals

So it's a "type of rhetorical writing style" to make up shit I never said and then argue against it? I never said that Dems wanted to "reform" Medicare into a private voucher program. Once again...that's all you.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wait a minute. Does anyone possess macroeconomic statistics to indicate a recent trend of job losses? If so, then we'd have reason to discuss what the cause might be. So far, I've seen anecdotes about companies laying off people for unproven reasons. But people get laid off all the time.

Where is the proof of the OP's premise?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wait a minute. Does anyone possess macroeconomic statistics to indicate a recent trend of job losses? If so, then we'd have reason to discuss what the cause might be. So far, I've seen anecdotes about companies laying off people for unproven reasons. But people get laid off all the time.

Where is the proof of the OP's premise?

OP's assertion may or may not be true. Economic statistics will give us a clearer picture of impact, but I doubt this information will be available anytime soon. It's hard to imagine this having a positive, or even neutral, impact on our economy with all the fines involved.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Well at least most health care dollars stay here, so if more money gets spent on HC versus shit made elsewhere, it may have a positive impact.

But as you said, only time will create the data that shows us the effects, the rest is speculation.

 

[Jadow]

It's just that the companies would need to accept smaller profit margins and explain to investors that they will make less money for the good of society as a whole.

Well, that would be illegal since the companies have a responsibilty to their shareholders to do what's best for the company, not what's best for society.

Also, any company who had a CEO or office speak of anything like that would be a company I would sell my stock in. I want my money that I invest to work for me. I do enough for society through charity and taxes.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, COBRA is really nothing like the employer shared responsibility mandate.



Add in that employers are no longer allowed to cover an employee only and their expenses will skyrocket. Currently employers are allowed to exclude dependents and come 2014 if that had continued they could foist them on to the exchange to receive subsidized coverage. However, the ACA prevents spouses from electing 'married - filing separately' as their tax status to receive a subsidy, so the ACA forces employers to cover dependents. The ACA also forces employers to cover at least 50% of the dependents' premium costs. Adding dependents could cause an employer's insurance cost to go up 200-300% on average, without even considering any of the other cost increase triggers.



The problem with that thinking is that the ACA doesn't allow for the existing waivers. Any waivers granted by the President or Secretary are unilateral decisions on enforcement. As such, there is nothing holding their feet to the fire on the 2014 expiration. In fact, we can already see the administration waffling as the waivers were originally granted on a year-by-year basis and now they are just blanket waivers through 2014.

Obama certainly knew what he was doing. He could have ended private sector health insurance more quickly had he been able to get the "public option" passed - even with bribes and arm-twisting he couldn't get that passed - but he knows the ACA will get the job done. Health insurance companies will continue to raise rates to pay for Obamacare, which will continue to add new mandates, which in turn will force more and more people to exchanges and Medicaid. The ACA will certainly end private sector health insurance, and I suspect private sector health care won't last a lot longer.

As far as waivers, we've long passed the point where laws limit the federal government. If it's politically expedient to continue waivers beyond 2014, waivers will be continued beyond 2014. I suspect we're not long from a major health care bailout of state and local governments and unions though; no one will need waivers if they can just get the federal government to pay for their insurance.

 

[diesbudt]

Interesting post, OP.

Your argument is very similar to this interesting data set that has always been a favorite of mine:

I will save the world. Time to become a pirate. WHO IS WITH ME?

 

[First]

Obamacare is a paradigm shift for businesses and the economy...this is a fact. A fact that you apparently have difficulty accepting. You've poured meaning into my words that was well beyond my intent and you're calling me on bullshit? The irony here is that you've accused me of making up shit and then go into rationalizing your convoluted thought process based purely on your made up shit. Wow.

It's a paradigm only in the sense that virtually all businesses now have to comply with what is already offered by most businesses. It is certainly not a fact that it's a paradigm shift in the clearly negative way you meant it, as evidenced by your OP in this thread in addition to your response to Ausm's post. So, will you admit you meant it was a negative paradigm shift, or will you continue to dodge and weave?

Social Security Act of 1935 - Republican Vote
House
Yes-81
No-15
Senate
Yes-16
No-5

No matter how you want to spin or twist it...Republicans voted overwhelming for Social Security.

A weak wimp-out. Please address the clear historical documentation that conservatives and businesses cried bloody murder for years leading up to, during and after SS. Try not to obfuscate on votes, I have never said they exist and have accepted them as fact, despite being completely irrelevant to my point (and Ausm's as well, btw).

Medicare Bill of 1965
House - Republican Vote
Yes-70
No-68
House - Democrat Vote
Yes-237
No-48
Senate - Republican Vote
Yes-13
No-17
Senate - Democrat Vote
Yes-57
No-7

Medicare passed with bipartisan support. Deal with it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...defazio-says-medicare-passed-virtually-no-re/

Hell...even the majority leader of the House had issues with Medicare.
"Democratic chairman, Wilbur D. Mills, opposed the idea of government-funded health care. In fact, Mills proved a tough sell in 1965 until some of his own pet proposals were added to the legislation. One of those — the addition of a voluntary, supplemental health care plan — had its roots in a Republican alternative bill."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...laims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/

Another wimp-out that addresses nothing in those quotes. Reagan being a prime example, as a 2-term president and leader of the conservative movement, of someone entirely opposed to Medicare before, during and after its passage (of course, having no ability whatsoever to get rid of it because of Dems in Congress during his tenure).

So if you're not even willing to have a discussion about the CLEAR history of conservative opposition to SS and Medicare, then it's really quite pointless even pretending you're the least bit informed or intelligent.

So it's a "type of rhetorical writing style" to make up shit I never said and then argue against it? I never said that Dems wanted to "reform" Medicare into a private voucher program. Once again...that's all you.

Jeez, another obfuscation that fails to address anything I said. You're quite a wimp.

 

[First]

OP's assertion may or may not be true. Economic statistics will give us a clearer picture of impact, but I doubt this information will be available anytime soon. It's hard to imagine this having a positive, or even neutral, impact on our economy with all the fines involved.

lol. So one minute you're telling me that I am incorrect in making the clear link between your comment about "paradigm shift" and negative consequences for the economy (in a thread exactly about that), while the next moment you're making comments like the above about how you have a hard time imagining Obamacare having even a neutral impact on the economy given the amount of fines it possesses. Truly entertaining.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So if you're not even willing to have a discussion about the CLEAR history of conservative opposition to SS and Medicare, then it's really quite pointless even pretending you're the least bit informed or intelligent.

You don't seem to get where I'm coming from. Let me spell it out for you. I made a couple statements and I defended those statements with facts. You on the other hand have done nothing to disprove my original points but instead twisted what I said into something I didn't. And then you go on to argue against what you fabricated. And I'm the one pretending to be intelligent? Please don't expect me to defend shit you make up about what I said.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. So one minute you're telling me that I am incorrect in making the clear link between your comment about "paradigm shift" and negative consequences for the economy (in a thread exactly about that), while the next moment you're making comments like the above about how you have a hard time imagining Obamacare having even a neutral impact on the economy given the amount of fines it possesses. Truly entertaining.

I started out saying that the OP's assertion may or may not be true....I don't know. Then I went on the say that it's hard to imagine a positive or neutral impact. What do you think?

 

[First]

You don't seem to get where I'm coming from. Let me spell it out for you. I made a couple statements and I defended those statements with facts.

It is true that you have indeed made irrelevant references to facts that do not in fact support your original argument. Continue.

You on the other hand have done nothing to disprove my original points but instead twisted what I said into something I didn't. And then you go on to argue against what you fabricated. And I'm the one pretending to be intelligent? Please don't expect me to defend shit you make up about what I said.

It's quite sad you continue to bitch out of supporting your original bullshit claims. Man up.

I started out saying that the OP's assertion may or may not be true....I don't know. Then I went on the say that it's hard to imagine a positive or neutral impact. What do you think?

Based on the actual words in your statements and the context of them, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you believe Obamacare is a negative paradigm shift. Now you're twisting in the wind attempting to backtrack on that comment. Which is fine, it's good that you're (now) apparently accepting of the reality that conservatives fought tooth and nail against SS and Medicare, and that you were merely bringing up a random factoid about how they voted on the legislation one time. Weird, but good for you!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It is true that you have indeed made irrelevant references to facts that do not in fact support your original argument. Continue.

My post regarding the SS and Medicare votes was a relevant response to Ausm. Start at post #73 and go from there...perhaps you will see the context....and not the "embellished" version you originally perceived. Please don't make up shit and lie about what I said. You haven't acknowledged what you did except to rationalize your defective thought process. Reading compreshensive doesn't appear to be your strong suit...nor does telling the truth about what I actually said. And you want me man up? That's a laugh.

Based on the actual words in your statements and the context of them, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you believe Obamacare is a negative paradigm shift. Now you're twisting in the wind attempting to backtrack on that comment. Which is fine, it's good that you're (now) apparently accepting of the reality that conservatives fought tooth and nail against SS and Medicare, and that you were merely bringing up a random factoid about how they voted on the legislation one time. Weird, but good for you!

I thought I was clear but this seems to be really difficult for you to understand. I believe Obamacare is paradigm shift for businesses and likely a negative one in terms of the economy. I don't know this, it is my opinion and we won't know the answer for probably another year or so. What do you think? <-- Second Request

Also, let me be absolutely clear...I never argued that some conservatives haven't fought tooth and nail against various aspects of SS and Medicare over the years since passage. This is all you wanting to twist my response to Ausm into something it wasn't. It's now very apparent that you actually do believe I was citing a random out-of-context factoid to Ausm. Some semblance of reading comprehension should have been your first tip-off that you may have misunderstood my intent...the second tip-off was that "woosh" sound you ignored as you typed your reply based on shit I never said.

 

[JockoJohnson]

My post regarding the SS and Medicare votes was a relevant in response to Ausm. Start at post #73 and go from there...perhaps you will see the context....and not the "embellished" version you originally perceived. Please don't make up shit and lie about what I said. You haven't acknowledged what you did except to rationalize your defective thought process. Reading compreshensive doesn't appear to be your strong suit...nor does telling the truth about what I actually said. And you want me man up? That's a laugh.


I thought I was clear but this seems to be really difficult for you to understand. I believe Obamacare is paradigm shift for businesses and likely a negative one in terms of the economy. I don't know this, it is my opinion and we won't know the answer for probably another year or so. What do you think? <-- Second Request

Also, let me be absolutely clear...I never argued that some conservatives haven't fought tooth and nail against various aspects of SS and Medicare over the years since passage. This is all you wanting to twist my response to Ausm into something it wasn't. It's now very apparent that you actually do believe I was citing a random out-of-context factoid to Ausm. Some semblance of reading comprehension should have been your first tip-off that you may have misunderstood my intent...the second tip-off was that "woosh" sound you ignored as you typed your reply based on shit I never said.

It's ODS but in reverse. They now think that every comment made by someone who is not in total agreement with Obama must be a complete loon and deserves to be treated like one. Anything you say will be interpreted as a direct loon attack on Obama that merits no real attention.

 

[werepossum]

I will save the world. Time to become a pirate. WHO IS WITH ME?

I dunno, that seems like a lot of hard work. How about this instead - you become a pirate, and I'll vote for government to take a "fair share" of your booty and spend it on me. That way we're both saving the world, but I get to play Fallout in air conditioned comfort.