I’m going to provisionally assume (but am also prepared to be corrected) that the OP will not give me the summary I requested. Can anyone describe what exactly Obama is supposedly doing to the funding of Medicare Advantage and why?
I’m almost certain the disdain stems from a lack of tolerance towards opposing views. You will find examples of certain political persuasions being trashed all over this site. Sometimes with justification, but often times simply because there is a sense they may not agree with the majority ideology.
Well, I hate to press this, but I already gave evidence that in this case you are wrong. Deal with it and do not ignore it.
“My post is my cite. I’m not here to educate or inform anyone, including myself. I know all I need to already, so take me at my word, you dirty libby elitist.”
The Doper Welcome Wagon is packing up now.
I believe Hatch was cited in the article as publicly opposing it. I know a couple of repubs opposing it is not enough for you, but deflecting away from the fact that the administration is responsible for implementing such an ethically questionable program does not make it any more ethical
Can you summarize the program as you understand it and the ethical problems you perceive with it?
I’m an optimist.
Well, no, if YOU are going to START A THREAD, it’s on you to…oh, nm. Pointless, really.
I hesitate to say this, but welcome to the Straight Dope, **TheSlapIsBack]/b].
Just wanted to say hi, welcome to the board, and point out a small thing that is a bit unusual from most boards.
This, despite what you seem to think, is NOT an echo chamber full of lefty longhairs. Nor is it an echo chamber full of tea partiers, or libertarians, or socialists. Like most of the general internet, it tends to lean left, however:
Unlike most, we here at the dope tend to say that we are open to debate, and honest discussion about damn near anything. Hell, we don’t even ban moon landing conspiracy nuts, or truthers, or birthers. We WILL try to educate them, and there may be some fun had at their expense, but we will listen to what they have to say.
And if they, or you, or anyone, has something new to bring to a discussion, with facts, citations (from sources that are as close to neutral as possible), folks will listen, and take that into account. I have seen minds changed here, which is VERY rare for internet forums.
If you think that Obama is deceiving the public, or one specific part of it, outline how, possibly why, and use FACTS to back it up.
That being said, you should also extend to others the courtesy of listening to their facts, thinking about what they say, and responding in kind. We are adults, after all.
Curiously I also took notice of what Hatch said and did (just take a pass so far) when I arrived to my conclusion that this amounts to a mountain made out of a mole hiil. What he said was that the GAO note “suggests” something improper, but the bottom line is clear for the reporters that had to deal with this, is that they are not getting any good narrative to go on. IMHO the conversation going on in the background is similar to this:
Reporter: Well, Mr. Hatch, with what you know will you demand an investigation or other action in congress against this travesty?
**Senator Hatch: **I said “it suggests” what do you think I’m? A jack in the box tea party republican? We will wait until they come with a resolution pointing out what exactly is illegal or if we in congress find a legal leg to stand in opposition to it.
**Reporter: ***well, I can’t go with that as a headline, we will also wait until the GAO or you begins to clarify what was illegal about it. *
Hey TheSlapIsBack, welcome to the SDMB.
Alright, I have tried to look into what you are talking about. And I’ve got nothing. Would you please explain what exactly the problem is? In general we consider it the responsibility of the OP to make a clear thesis in discussions like this.
And you may find we aren’t nearly as universally liberal as you may think. I for one am a registered Republican, although of a more moderate bent. But you have to present a clear and coherent argument, if you want to get a discussion going.
So far you haven’t presented anything to discuss. You have laid down several thinly veiled insults, and prejudged the response before you even got one. If you can’t do better than that, then of course you shouldn’t expect an honest debate. But if you debate honestly, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the response.
A couple of Republicans opposing something is rather different from it being illegal.
Almost all of the Republicans believed that the Affordable Care Act was illegal (unconstitutional) and they were shown to be wrong.
Should I have posted in the Elections section.
I find it really strange that there are so many who want me to summarize or clarify or explain or elaborate etc…
Seems to me that there is a concerted effort to avoid simply discussing the topic.
I have seen titles of posts elsewhere that just take cheap shots at conservatives or libertarians and its basically an invitation for everybody to pile on with group think. I ask these 2 simple questions and everybody starts short circuiting or suddenly suffers from a deficit of opinion unless it is a personal insult directed at the OP
I am having trouble figuring out if I posted in the wrong place or if people genuinely refuse to accept a disagreeing point of view. I will not accept the idea that some kind clarification needs to be made. There are plenty of people who have had no issue discussing. If you need clarification, it has nothing to do with my framing or wording. If you see nothing wrong with the subject that is perfectly fine. I see absolutely no need to hold anybody’s hand in figuring it out though.
Sorry, Slap. Anyone who says, “I care deeply about this issue, but it’s not my responsibility to back up my opinion,” is essentially arguing in bad faith.
*I see absolutely no need to hold anybody’s hand in figuring it out though.
*
people want you to summarize your take on what is happening: are you unable to do that? or just unwilling?
start from the assumption that people honestly, genuinely want to know what you think. try.
It’s not just that. He won’t even summarize the assertion. How does one propose something, attempt to make others do his work for him, and then castigate them when they won’t?
With the amount of time it has taken for him to respond to a number of posts stating, at length, that he won’t provide a summary to his OP, he could have easily done so and we could be well on to discussing the topic by now, but I guess his obtuse “I don’t have to explain nothin’. Just read the link and respond to my rhetorical question” tactic allows him to play victim to the bully liberals, and perhaps that’s all he wants anyway.
Well, in my case, it was to determine what exactly the topic was. Assume for a moment that I’m not familiar with this specific issue, but I get that you’re angry (or annoyed, or peeved, or concerned, however you want to describe your reaction). So why is it so evasive to ask you to put in your own words what it is that angers/annoys/peeves/concerns you?
You could have used a twentieth of the effort you’ve put into describing how hostile this board is to write up a paragraph or two summarizing what Obama supposedly did and the consequences it will supposedly have and why it’s supposedly illegal.
Well, I’m sure that will play well with someone who is already inclined to believe Obama is bad and will casually accept anything that suggests that he is bad and ask no follow-up questions, but the standards are higher, here.
“Is it not the responsibility of the media to inform senior citizens that they are not only being lied too but tax payer money is being used to hide the truth?”
And is it not the SD reader’s responsibility to try to determine the point the poster is trying to make?
Wondering if the OP often has difficulty identifying any responsibilities of his own.:smack:
But the principle is the thing, and the principle is “I ain’t giving you shit.”
Or maybe we’re just snooty elitists because we refuse to settle questions like men, with partisan yelling, loudest voice wins.
No offense to seniors, but I have almost no sympathy for them.