or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies - Page 11

post #181 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I didn't want to get into this discussion but I'll make these points and leave it at that.  The ACA is not feasible as it's written today.

 

Financially it's flawed, the penalty is far below the cost of the health care plans.  Those who don't wish to spend money on health care will opt for the penalty as it costs them less.  So the biggest problem (uninsured people) isn't being addressed as after ACA we will still have uninsured.

 

I'm not sure what side I fall on overall, but I don't see a problem with that specific point.  Yes, we still have uninsured, but there are theoretically fewer of them. And with the penalties being paid, the ones that are still uninsured are helping to subsidize the insured.

post #182 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

He was a professional comedian, now he's just a hand puppet for the liberal agenda.  Professional comedians leverage humor from both sides, like Leno.  Maher's material is 100% at the expense of the GOP.    

No where in the comedic handbook does it say you should take both sides of all issues, or that that makes you more "professional." Most comedians would much rather be Bill Maher and have a consistent voice than be Jay Leno and try to appease everyone.

Maher has a tendency to get very broken record-y. Much of his writing staff has been with him for years. If you watch his show enough and know enough about comedy it's not hard at all to call out his monologue and New Rules punchlines before he delivers them.

That's not to say it can't be funny. Consistent humor is still humor, after all.

Anyway, back to arguing politics on the internet. Don't tell me how it ends!
post #183 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


No where in the comedic handbook does it say you should take both sides of all issues, or that that makes you more "professional." Most comedians would much rather be Bill Maher and have a consistent voice than be Jay Leno and try to appease everyone.

Maher has a tendency to get very broken record-y. Much of his writing staff has been with him for years. If you watch his show enough and know enough about comedy it's not hard at all to call out his monologue and New Rules punchlines before he delivers them.

That's not to say it can't be funny. Consistent humor is still humor, after all.

 

This.

 

I stumbled upon Maher about 3 years ago flipping through HBO. 

 

He was funny, most of the time he had people with an opposing viewpoint on the panel. In the pre-panel, he typically has a quick interview with an individual who has made a contribution to a worthy cause. He has the panel, and then you see typically a liberal celebrity join them in mid-panel. Then he does his "Maher" thing afterwards to end the show.

 

Admittedly, I only catch bits and pieces of the show now. As Jamo says, once you see a bit of it, it's a bit like Groundhog Day. And you must filter - remember it's comedy with commentary and satire. Of course, with the tea people, Maher doesn't need to exaggerate. I mean, have you heard Louie Gohmert, the Congressman of Texas? My word ... and he is not the only tea person that is a fruitcake. I mean Michelle Bauchman predicting the end of days? Maher doesn't need to make this up - the tea people write it for him.

 

Sometimes, Maher says things over which I blush or in very poor taste. I change the channel. Still,  he is a funny guy, although his humor bites ... a lot. Personally, for a one man show I prefer Lewis Black.

post #184 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Do you know what irony is?  In the very same sentence, you complain about being called names (which I would probably have agreed with you on, "tea bagging" is not exactly a nice phrase) yet in the same post you do the exact same thing!  If you're going to call him a socialist, then you get to remain a tea-bagger.  If you're giving below the fray, then be prepared to be taking below the fray.

 

Calling a liberal a socialist is about as accurate as calling a conservative an anarchist.  Personally, I prefer that other, "horribly offensive," name that somehow turned into a negative over the last few years ... "progressive." ;)

 

 

There is so much right with this post as it applies to the tone of contemporary political debate.  Too much name calling and not enough discussion of issues.  The real debate on how to handle universal health care was destroyed when some moron first used the term "death panel."

 

And I don't understand why the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have to be pejorative.  Actually, no one on the right ever calls anyone on the left a "progressive" because that doesn't sound communist enough.  

 

Reminds me of a quote from the movie "An American President."  I'm paraphrasing, but the R candidate accuses the D incumbent of being a member of the ACLU.  The D (played by Michael Douglas) responds:  "Why aren't you a member, Bob?  Why wouldn't you be a member of an organization whose sole stated purpose is to uphold and defend the Constitution?"

 

I'm all for people defending their interpretation of the constitution.  But doing so by labeling your opponent is asinine.  

post #185 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

There is so much right with this post as it applies to the tone of contemporary political debate.  Too much name calling and not enough discussion of issues.  The real debate on how to handle universal health care was destroyed when some moron first used the term "death panel."

 

And I don't understand why the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have to be pejorative.  Actually, no one on the right ever calls anyone on the left a "progressive" because that doesn't sound communist enough.  

 

Reminds me of a quote from the movie "An American President."  I'm paraphrasing, but the R candidate accuses the D incumbent of being a member of the ACLU.  The D (played by Michael Douglas) responds:  "Why aren't you a member, Bob?  Why wouldn't you be a member of an organization whose sole stated purpose is to uphold and defend the Constitution?"

 

I'm all for people defending their interpretation of the constitution.  But doing so by labeling your opponent is asinine.  

 

Just as conservative has been hammered by the left as well. It was Rove's great strategy to label Bush as a "Compassionate Conservative", aka a Volvo with a gun rack (Robin Williams on broadway is a brilliant comedic act). To get the thinking away from that conservatives were all hard ass, want to kill your grandparents by denying them Medicare, into something that was easy to associate and empathize with. It's all about branding, period. It's what Obama did so well in his campaigns, master of spin. Obama is so good at spin, he should have been a DJ not a president, bazinga!!!

 

Here's the thing, its effective. It's effective to get small little sound bites in the heads of Americans.

post #186 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Here's the thing, its effective. It's effective to get small little sound bites in the heads of Americans.

 

It's stupid.  No political idea can be effectively communicated through a tweet, sound byte, or television ad.  I agree it works, but it's stupid--and it's easy to both produce and consume, so it drowns out the hum of actual information.

 

I'll caveat my position:  the only political idea that can be effectively communicated via such means is an anti.  Fear, hate, ruination, etc.  Also stupid.

 

Where is Thomas Paine today?  If he existed, would anyone notice?

post #187 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

This.

 

I stumbled upon Maher about 3 years ago flipping through HBO.

 

He was funny, most of the time he had people with an opposing viewpoint on the panel. In the pre-panel, he typically has a quick interview with an individual who has made a contribution to a worthy cause. He has the panel, and then you see typically a liberal celebrity join them in mid-panel. Then he does his "Maher" thing afterwards to end the show.

 

Admittedly, I only catch bits and pieces of the show now. As Jamo says, once you see a bit of it, it's a bit like Groundhog Day. And you must filter - remember it's comedy with commentary and satire. Of course, with the tea people, Maher doesn't need to exaggerate. I mean, have you heard Louie Gohmert, the Congressman of Texas? My word ... and he is not the only tea person that is a fruitcake. I mean Michelle Bauchman predicting the end of days? Maher doesn't need to make this up - the tea people write it for him.

 

Sometimes, Maher says things over which I blush or in very poor taste. I change the channel. Still,  he is a funny guy, although his humor bites ... a lot. Personally, for a one man show I prefer Lewis Black.

Jamo nailed it ... there are no rules as to what counts as a comedian, other than some people think you're funny.  (The first time I went to the Met, in the modern art section there was a canvas about 15'x20' painted black.  Seriously.  WTF?)

 

Also, Des is right that he frequently has people with opposing viewpoints on his show and debates them.

 

But as far as his humor ... I'm not a big fan.  Especially his stand up.  Way too much gratuitous cursing.  And I don't mind cursing at all.  Chris Rock's 'Never Scared' is one of the funniest things out there IMO.  But Maher just curses to curse.  He reminds me of Carlos Mencia ... who basically gets his laughs from his f-words.  They don't expand on his point or provide explanation or anything, they are the joke.  If that's all you got, then to me, you are not funny.  Maher is not much different than that in the stand up specials I've seen.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Reminds me of a quote from the movie "An American President."  I'm paraphrasing, but the R candidate accuses the D incumbent of being a member of the ACLU.  The D (played by Michael Douglas) responds:  "Why aren't you a member, Bob?  Why wouldn't you be a member of an organization whose sole stated purpose is to uphold and defend the Constitution?"

Not that it's a huge surprise that I love that movie (West Wing, Sports Night, A Few Good Men ... is there a pattern here?? ;)) but I have goosebumps now thinking about it.  That is the best scene of a great movie.  "My name is Andrew Sheppard and I AM the President." ;)

post #188 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by madolive3 View Post
 


Tea Bagger?? You wouldn't call me a tea Bagger to my face,  You are  a typical internet moron.. The  Tea party stands for smaller Government plane and simple.  They put pressure on politicians like any other political movement. . This is typical of the liberals, attack and marginalize those who disagree with or threaten your socialist agenda.

But the Tea Party also attracts the bigots and crazies and birthers and calls everyone who does not agree with them "socialists" and  "Nazis".  If they stuck to their message, which is a valid point of view, and had it articulated by people other than Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, then they would be taken more seriously by moderates who make up most of America.  But they feel the need to sensationalize everything and refer to the extreme on every occasion.  They say dumb things like, "slavery was actually good for African Americans."  This latest stunt is a perfect example of how they try to get there message across.

 

State why you want smaller government and how you would achieve it without weakening the country.  It should be easy.  But if you keep saying that the ACA, Medicare and Social Security are the "End of Days" and "Nazi Socialism", you cannot be taken seriously.

post #189 of 298

Our forefathers did not want our citizens to be career politicians.

 

What they wanted was for citizens to go to our nation's capital and spend maybe two to four years and then return forever to their homes to work at their normal occupation.

 

The ACA was nothing more than Obama getting the federal government totally in control of our healthcare in this country.

 

And just a socialistic act with his redistribution of wealth where he gives some very costly healthcare premiums so they can pay for others who get very inexpensive healthcare policies.

 

Just more of Obama picking winners and losers as he marches this country even more deeply into socialism/communism.

post #190 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Jamo nailed it ... there are no rules as to what counts as a comedian, other than some people think you're funny.  (The first time I went to the Met, in the modern art section there was a canvas about 15'x20' painted black.  Seriously.  WTF?)

I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston once when I was a kid. One display was a dead sheep covered in dead mosquitoes. I assume there's some sort of worn-out symbolism with with the word "sheep," but I was more concerned with the stench. The thing was encased in glass but they clearly didn't seal it up well enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

But as far as his humor ... I'm not a big fan.  Especially his stand up.  Way too much gratuitous cursing.  And I don't mind cursing at all.  Chris Rock's 'Never Scared' is one of the funniest things out there IMO.  But Maher just curses to curse.  He reminds me of Carlos Mencia ... who basically gets his laughs from his f-words.  They don't expand on his point or provide explanation or anything, they are the joke.  If that's all you got, then to me, you are not funny.  Maher is not much different than that in the stand up specials I've seen.

Depends on the word. When Maher calls people names, I'd agree. He can be extremely unimaginative and repetitive. He's better with more general swear words (I'd write them but they'd all be bleeped anyway), and often uses them well to make a point.

FWIW, I mostly disagree with the Mencia comparison. They have some similarities, but not very deep ones.
post #191 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

If they stuck to their message, which is a valid point of view, and had it articulated by people other than Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, then they would be taken more seriously by moderates who make up most of America.

It's been done. The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater.
post #192 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

But the Tea Party also attracts the bigots and crazies and birthers and calls everyone who does not agree with them "socialists" and  "Nazis".  If they stuck to their message, which is a valid point of view, and had it articulated by people other than Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, then they would be taken more seriously by moderates who make up most of America.  But they feel the need to sensationalize everything and refer to the extreme on every occasion.  They say dumb things like, "slavery was actually good for African Americans."  This latest stunt is a perfect example of how they try to get there message across.

 

State why you want smaller government and how you would achieve it without weakening the country.  It should be easy.  But if you keep saying that the ACA, Medicare and Social Security are the "End of Days" and "Nazi Socialism", you cannot be taken seriously.

Bingo.  And it's completely idiotic, because the only people who like hearing that nonsense are already on your side anyway.  You don't have to appease them, they're not going anywhere!  Tone it down and try to appeal to the vast majority of the country who all fall a lot closer to the middle.   Since gerrymandering has apparently gotten out of hand, this stuff works just fine locally, so I get that is how, perhaps, you need to get elected as a congressman, but senators and presidential candidates have to recognize that if they're going to get anywhere, then they need to try and appeal to more than just the fringe.

 

I think that is the sole reason why Obama won in '08.  McCain was that outside of the box, middle ground guy, but then I guess he decided he really needed to appeal to those on the far right (or else the black liberal (sorry, I mean the Muslim Kenyan) might steal them away from him!) so he listened to the dummy who told him Sarah Palin would be a good idea.  (And Joe the Plumber)  He lost his way.

 

And, yes, this would be true for left wing extremists too, not just right.

post #193 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston once when I was a kid. One display was a dead sheep covered in dead mosquitoes. I assume there's some sort of worn-out symbolism with with the word "sheep," but I was more concerned with the stench. The thing was encased in glass but they clearly didn't seal it up well enough.
Depends on the word. When Maher calls people names, I'd agree. He can be extremely unimaginative and repetitive. He's better with more general swear words (I'd write them but they'd all be bleeped anyway), and often uses them well to make a point.

FWIW, I mostly disagree with the Mencia comparison. They have some similarities, but not very deep ones.

That's just gross. ;)

 

I should clarify ... he's not remotely as bad as Mencia.  For Mencia, the f-words ARE the jokes.  He'll tell a story and the punchline will be something like "What do you think you're doing, f**ker?!?!"  And that's it.  But Maher is clearly smart, and has some funny things to say, he just peppers them (at least on a couple of his stand up specials - not as bad on his HBO show) with too many f-words.  A joke that would be funny without the f-word, I mean.  You add one unnecessarily and it takes away from it a bit.  Like you're trying too hard because you think your audience is comprised of junior high kids or something.

post #194 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintsmania View Post
 

Our forefathers did not want our citizens to be career politicians.

 

What they wanted was for citizens to go to our nation's capital and spend maybe two to four years and then return forever to their homes to work at their normal occupation.

 

The ACA was nothing more than Obama getting the federal government totally in control of our healthcare in this country.

 

And just a socialistic act with his redistribution of wealth where he gives some very costly healthcare premiums so they can pay for others who get very inexpensive healthcare policies.

 

Just more of Obama picking winners and losers as he marches this country even more deeply into socialism/communism.

Oh my word... and cling to your guns, man! Obama is gonna take'm. Keep 'em close!

 

:-$

post #195 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

It's stupid.  No political idea can be effectively communicated through a tweet, sound byte, or television ad.  I agree it works, but it's stupid--and it's easy to both produce and consume, so it drowns out the hum of actual information.

 

I'll caveat my position:  the only political idea that can be effectively communicated via such means is an anti.  Fear, hate, ruination, etc.  Also stupid.

 

Where is Thomas Paine today?  If he existed, would anyone notice?

This is an excellent point. I would take it a step further. No political idea can even be communicated in a television news broadcast, where each news story gets about three minutes tops in an brief summary bereft of any details. Even the print journalists get it wrong quite often, which I realized very quickly as an employee of a governor's office. You need to READ and RESEARCH an issue to have any insight into it. Read the CBO reports about the ACA. Read the bill summary itself (don;t try to read the whole thing unless suicide is your ultimate goal). Read reports from Kaiser, and then left-leaning think tanks like the Urban Institute, and then the right like Cato. A television ad or sound byte now is used as a "gotcha" moment to spew hate and bile against someone. 

post #196 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintsmania View Post
 

Our forefathers did not want our citizens to be career politicians.

 

What they wanted was for citizens to go to our nation's capital and spend maybe two to four years and then return forever to their homes to work at their normal occupation.

 

The ACA was nothing more than Obama getting the federal government totally in control of our healthcare in this country.

 

And just a socialistic act with his redistribution of wealth where he gives some very costly healthcare premiums so they can pay for others who get very inexpensive healthcare policies.

 

Just more of Obama picking winners and losers as he marches this country even more deeply into socialism/communism.

There you go again with the "S" and "C" words.  You just cannot articulate any point without it.  News flash, having a military or police force or Fire Dept paid for by the people is also socialist. Fixing roads and bridges with money from your tax dollars is also socialist.  Paying farmers subsidies even though their crops did well is also socialist.  Having the tax dollars from the Northeast, CA, Illinois, TX flow to other states is also socialist.  You just conveniently call certain things socialist and forget the rest.

 

As for redistribution of wealth, the Ponzi scheme known as "trickle down economics" is the biggest sucker play ever put forth by politicians.  I love paying Mitt Romney's taxes.  Really I do.  It also makes my day knowing I pay in full every year and GE doesn't pay at all.

post #197 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Oh my word... and cling to your guns, man! Obama is gonna take'm. Keep 'em close!

 

:-$

 

That's not really a response to what he said.

 

I don't care much about politics, but I skim almost every thread and post here, and comments like this do more to discourage me from giving weight to your other points than to making them.

 

Posts like the above make you look conceited, stupid, and several other things which you are likely not.

 

Could the post to which you responded have had more substance? Of course. But while I assign virtually no weight to its point, posts like yours actually warrant a slightly negative response.

post #198 of 298
So far, 500 million lines of code "written", not debugged apparently, billions of dollars spent.

Only "thousands" of people are signed up?

Even the worst private insurance company can't be this inefficient.

Just an observation from a politically moderate engineer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies