8 tracks (sadly I remember them) were not as common as CRT TV’s and they certainly didn’t have the longevity.
I think you would probably gat a few dollars for an 8 track now. Not a CRT TV. :mad:
So are you mad at Bricker because Bricker isn’t your cuppa political tea or because of how he talks to you?
**Bricker **is abrasive, but he’s useful. He’s often the minority opinion, but at least he doesn’t go on for pages about how his post is his cite - full stop, the end, he wins, and etc. I think he handles being that minority opinion pretty well, actually, and even when he’s being rude I can still appreciate his value as a poster. Whether he just likes being the Devil’s Advocate or he’s really that way is still unclear, but talking to Bricker can be an exercise in self-restraint. Which you are clearly failing.
If you are mad at the mods you can take it to ATMB, but that won’t get you far. If you’re going to continue to engage Bricker in the future, I would just keep in mind a few things. 1) Pitting doesn’t do anything when it comes to** Bricker **2) Bricker rarely runs out of steam, so be prepared to go on for pages, because as soon as you give up or get bored he’ll try to force you to concede defeat and 3) If you want to get away with what Bricker does, take a cue from his posting style.
Posting in the Pit doesn’t get at him at all. Putting up a good fight in GD may, though. He’s one of those posters that you just have to shrug off.
Okay, sure. For you, since you asked so nicely, I promise no more bold and caps in this thread.
Happy Mother’s Day!
I say he’s making no rebuttal at all to my OP because I didn’t say anything in my OP about how a small business owner has to divvy up the returned portion of the premiums they paid that were not used for providing actual health care as proscribed by the law.
Frankly, that entire line of argument could be considered a hijack of my OP, considering the points I was making were:
1.) The provision that requires your health care premium to be used at a ratio of 80 (and in some cases 85, though I don’t have the law at my fingertips and arguing about which loopholes that applies to would also be a hijack):20, is about to kick in and insurers who did not meet this obligation are going to have to start returning “overpayments” to the payers.
2.) The returned overpayments amount to a significant amount of money that will now go back out into the economy instead of sitting in cash stockpiles (which corporations are hoarding at the moment, not doing anything to stimulate the economy), CEO bonuses (which is where that money has always gone in the past; the notion that the insurance companies would use it to increase their own employees’ salaries is downright freaking hilarious because we all know that would never happen), or other non-healthcare-related spending such as advertising.
3.) I would hope that companies who profit from promising to cover the back-end cost of our health care if we pay them for it in advance, being held to actually doing that is something we could all agree was generally a good thing. We have all kinds of monitoring systems in place to ensure our charitable dollars are actually going to the causes they claim to support and we are universally up in arms when our funds go substantially into the pockets of the charity itself and not to the cause. In fact, people are put in prison for fraud when they don’t meet certain thresholds of using charitable donations for the actual cause they claim to represent. I don’t think I was out of my mind to hope that we could find agreement that holding for-profit organizations in the health care industry to such standards was a “good thing.” See, for example, Doctors Without Borders, whose ratio is 92.1: 7.9.
4.) $1.3 billion is not chump change, and it isn’t even the final number in how consumers have benefited from this provision, because many insurers actually have met that requirement and have already either reduced their premiums or returned overcharges to the insured. Again, how is this a bad thing?
Now, if you’re Bricker and you see that someone has diverted the conversation from “returning unused premiums to consumers (including the small businesses who, even if they didn’t have to pass those refunds on to their employees, still count as consumers) should be something we can agree is a ‘good thing’, right?” to “small businesses aren’t consumers,” which is a pedantic diversion, you see that as your opening to puff up your tail feathers, declare your superiority because you read the Straight Dope (I’m still laughing my ass off at that one), and make a personal attack against the person trying to find a common principle we can, for freaking once, agree upon … in Great Debates!
I hope that answered your question, LHOD.
Again, I ask, so what? Isn’t this where we’re supposed to go when someone else here posts something that makes us angry? Is there a reason I’m not allowed to be angry that that little shitstain does this to me Every. Fucking. Time. I. Post. Something. In. GD!? And gets away with it? And is usually wrong, as he actually turns out to be here, as well? Why shouldn’t that make me angry? After 12 1/2 years of dealing with that bullshit, yes, I’m angry that he still does it and still gets away with doing it.
My whole family are conservatives (though not necessarily Republicans), and I love them to bits and pieces. I don’t “get mad” at people because of their politics - that would be stupid. I was infuriated that he once again attacked me personally in the GD forum. He didn’t just use a “style” of conversation, he attacked me, personally. He does it often. I’m bloody well sick of it. (Though after a lovely evening of wine, a funny movie, a visit with friends and some mother’s day love from my wonderful hubby, I’m actually rather “meh” about it now. But in the heat of the moment? Yeah. Outraged.)
I find him utterly useless, but that’s a matter of opinion I’m more than happy to concede isn’t universally shared and that’s fine. I have as much or more steam as he does, and if I run out of it, I’m happy to shut the door on his smarmy ass and walk away. But between him and me, it’s usually him having to concede defeat to me. Though in this case it isn’t about “winning” or “losing” an argument, it’s about him being completely out of line in that thread. At least I took it where it belonged to insult him.
Stop polluting a perfectly good Pitting with that Debate nonsense .
Yes, it is.
Shayna, you have every right to be mad. I’d be mad too. And splitting hairs between passion and anger is just stupid. Both are intense emotions about pixels on a screen. Just because one has a negative valence doesn’t make it inferior or “wrong”. A feeling just is.
That’s an interesting – and calmer – response, Shayna.
I notice you have wisely abandoned the line of argument that Halperin is a conservative, and thus unimpeachable as a source (at least by me).
You now seem be arguing that the entire question of whether the subscriber gets any money is a hijack of your point, which is simply that this is a generally good development for the world.
I don’t really have any comment to that argument. My response was to the claim that this money was being returned, by law, to the subscriber, and the purpose of my response was to highlight a loophole that did not actually require such return. Since you have now declared that this rumination is a hijack, and the entirety of your point is that the Affordable Health Care Act is good, I guess have I have nothing further to contribute.
Alex, I’ll take Redheads and Menopause for $1000 please.
Isn’t Halperin co-author of Game Change-that “less-than-flattering” biography of Sarah Palin and the McCain/Palin campaign? If so, definitely not conservative. He’s a fixture on MSNBC. He and the other author, John Heilman.
Didn’t he write The Note during the '04 campaign?
Thanks, monstro. Happy Mother’s Day hugs to you.
Oh just shut the fuck up already, you sick sonofabitch. The notion that I’ve abandoned an argument because I simply didn’t mention that part of it in one or two replies is proof positive what a stinking stupid idiot you are.
And Proof The Second Part is that I never, ever used the word “subscriber” anywhere in my original post, nor is that term used in the linked OpEd. Consumers are getting back more than $1.3 billion and you are free to “define” consumers however the bloody fuck you want, (I’m sorry Farmer Jane, but I have to bold this; I hope you’ll forgive me) but that doesn’t change the scope of my argument that that money is being returned, which is a) the right thing to do, and b) good for the economy.
But this post is evidence of even more than your absolute stupidity; it’s proof that you comport yourself exactly like good little conservatives have been trained by their leaders to do: to pretend you’ve won an argument by twisting the argument itself to conform to whatever the hell you decide to invent it to be.
You’re nothing more than a goddamn shill for the Republican party, and you have the nerve to tell me that I live in an echo chamber? It is to fucking laugh.
It’s not that Bricker is right. It’s just that he posts so freakishly smug. And like I said, as soon as you stop posting, he says you give up/he wins/etc.
(:
An exercise in patience, indeed.
He has his moments. Unfortunately, they’re moments. But he does have them!
This is embarrassing and honestly makes Shayna look like a crazy person.
She has done this in the past, if you question her factual assertions about Barack Obama she literally goes insane and says you are personally attacking her. I’ve been in threads where she blows up like this, in which the people questioning her receive no moderator admonishment (because they are not attacking her personally at all, but instead just questioning her facts and the biases that may underlie them) but she does receive admonishment, because she is clearly making personal attacks.
In this instance the fact remains she obviously was not familiar with the law, and happily crowed that all employers were required to simply pass these rebates back on to their employees. That was factually incorrect, and once exposed Bricker told her to actually read the law instead of having it interpreted for her (since that lead her down the path of being factually wrong), and that’s caused her to blow up in an insane temper tantrum.
I’d be ashamed if I acted as stupid and childish as Shayna does on a regular basis.
The gravamen of the pitting is that it’s wildly unfair and an insult to claim **Shayna **is living in an echo chamber when (a) you have no idea what media she consumes and (b) the source she quoted on which you’re basing this is hardly a leftist and © the error in the source isn’t even obviously an error. Maybe calling someone blindered and irrationally biased is not an insult according to GD rules. I don’t really know. But it’s hardly the platonic ideal of civil discourse.
Is anyone seriously disputing that? Is **Bricker **even disputing it?
I think it’s fair to say we have a pretty good idea what kind of media Shayna consumes. If you were following any of her threads in 2008 and since then, I think it is fair to use the extremely partisan news sources that she has linked to these boards probably hundreds if not thousands of times as a basis to say she mostly consumes news that tells her what she wants to hear.
If someone is showing bias, I personally don’t know how it is a personal attack to say “you’re biased.”
Confirmation bias on your part seems an equally plausible diagnosis. Alternatively, it seems that one of the things Shayna enjoys doing on this board is cheerleading for Obama. Consequently, many of her posts are probably lefty sites debunking conservative myths. That doesn’t say anything about what media she consumes. It says something about what she enjoys posting about. I read mostly libertarian blogs like Hit & Run and Volohk Conspiracy, but I rarely post about them.
And it is an insult to say that someone deliberately shelters herself from opposing views. It’s possible that not everyone considers an insult. But I imagine most do. And, as I said, it is at least ad hominem since Shayna wasn’t asking anyone to take her word for it.
Calling someone biased is an attempt to undercut the entire argument: They’re biased, therefore their argument is weakened (provided the accusation is true). Fox is biased, George Soros is biased, SDMB membership is biased.
All of us have bias. Shayna has bias, Bricker has bias, the mods have bias. I can see how it’s an insult, but it’s also a fair one to lobby at someone in GD imho. So…if it is an insult, it’s a really weak one.
Bricker may charge that someone is biased, but that’s rarely the point of his argument. Or if it is, he at least puts forth a case.
edit again: Also, why would I care if she bolds anything?
Rest assured, no worries there. You present as someone who went from the innocence of childhood to the bitterness of old age on the same birthday.
Its not too late, you know. Won’t say its never too late, because the clock ticks. But its not too late yet.