Friday, February 07, 2014

Republicons Luvs Dem Some Freedumb!

Pall "Lyin" Ryan

It's got to suck to be a Republicon. I mean having to lie all the time, about EVERYTHING! That's Got to be Exhausting! This week's most prominent example was how every GOPster jumped out and pounced on the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on Obamacare, Twisting it's conclusions into Half-Truth, the main ingredient in the curdled concoction that is GOPropaganda.

The GOPster syndicate took the CBO finding that Obamacare would cause a reduction in hours worked equivalent to 2.5 million full-time workers by 2025 and Twisted it into the Lie that 2.5 million jobs would be lost.

The Truth of the matter is that the CBO report finds that Americans who will No Longer be Shackled to their Jobs because of the Healthcare They Need for themselves and their Families will likely decide to reduce their hours or leave jobs in order to accommodate their personal needs and those of their families. Not being a Slave to a Job you don't otherwise need just to have healthcare for you family? That sounds a lot like Liberty to me!

And those jobs aren't going away, so maybe that'll give some opportunities to some of the young people whose Hopes for the American Dream have been Dashed by the Great Republicon Recession.

Them's Fightin Werds!

And what's with the Coke inspired Hatriots who love's them some Freedumb ya'll, but think they're Empowered to Dictate to Others what language they're allowed to speak, or sing? Oh, and dear ones, America the Beautiful is NOT the National Anthem, although, I for one think it should be. Do these idiots actually think their forebears spoke the native tongue of these shores when they landed . . . or English?

Which of course reminds us of the the hate-filled response to the little girl and her bi-racial family featured in the Cheerios ad of last year, reprised in an updated ad for last Sunday's Super Bowl. In the Cult of Con personal freedom still doesn't extend to the choice of an individual to decide who they should love.



Nemo said...

I'm not sure I should try to correct your myopic view of conservatives.

Sun Tzu, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle".

Given this bit of ancient wisdom, please sean, believe that all conservatives are dumb liars, believe that the ACA is not a total disaster and believe that proglodytes will thrive in the November 4th elections this year. November 5th should be very entertaining. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Yeah Nemo, I've read the Art of War.

Unfortunately for you it's you who does not know your own side. Real conservatives don't need to lie. However, your ideological masters in today's Cult of Con do need to lie about nearly everything because everything they do has a hidden agenda and they know it because they're far from dumb.

Unfortunately you and the other indoctrinants eagerly swallow their lies hook, line and sinker, because most of you wouldn't approve of their hidden agendas and the GOParty Platform would crumble.

My patients with you is thin because you're a very dishonest person. but if you can articulate how Obamacare is a disaster and back it up, I'm willing to hear your argument.

I also challenge you to come up with three tenants of the Cult of Con faith and I will show you the requisite lies and perhaps you scales will fall from your eyes. THAT would be a miracle!

If you come back with your standard rambling bullshit and unsupported pronouncements, I'll just go back to deleting your waste of time trollish crap.

Nemo said...

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Before we start, it would be wise to make sure the words we use mean the same things to each other. You have accused me of being a "very dishonest person". Since I have been nothing but truthful in my comments, I am not sure that we agree on the definition of dishonest. There are many ways to acquire knowledge. I seem to learn best with examples. Please cite an example of my dishonesty so that I might be able to understand your definition.

After you reply to this, I'll start with the ACA. I'm glad that you are willing to hear my arguments. Are you also willing to listen to them?

Replies to your posts may take awhile. Going to ski Brule tomorrow and up to Superior to explore ice caves after that. Those adventures will have to be written up like last week.

Later tater.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, I'm not going to go a goose chase though the annals of Kay's Blue Racine, Free Racine and BAP Blog commentary to dig up examples of you're diversion and obfuscation.

Please proceed as time allows, I envy you by the way, I haven't been to Brule in years and have never seen the caves, but I hear they're spectacular this year. The ball is in you court, Perhaps you'd like to start with the topic of the post above and attempt demonstrate how I erred in my assertion the the Republicons lied about the CBO Report and "job loss".

You know if the ACA really was "total disaster" as you claim, they wouldn't need to lie about it all, like the one you swallowed not too long ago about people waiting to enroll until they got sick, leaving out the fact that people can't just enroll anytime they want to. A fact that when I pointed it out, you simply chose to ignore, which is Nemo standard operating procedure (SOP) and will suffice for my example of your dishonesty. I'm certain you could find it as easily as I, if you care to do so.

Be forewarned, if you're going to use obscure, fringe whackidoodle websites as your sources for documentation, as is your SOP for climate change denial, that's not going to wash.

Nemo said...

The ACA is a disaster. You can point to the sustainability of the ACA's model, you can point to the website*, or you can point to any of the other implementation missteps. Valid points all, but the item that in my opinion makes this law a disaster is the increasingly extralegal nature of the beast. When a President dislikes a law because of a rate, or date, or political calculation or other cause he works with congress to fix the law. That's the way the Constitution works. What he does not do, what he can not do legally, is rewrite the law himself. Despite this, that is exactly what has been done. When the President declares himself above the law, that's a disaster.

*Currently it will be down starting Saturday Feb 15, 2014 for maintenance. That's also the last day the uninsured can sign up for coverage starting on March 1st. Great planning. But don't fret. If they miss that date, the health insuranceless can still sign up for off-marketplace insurance or Medicaid after open enrollment anytime. Now, what were you saying about enrolling for health insurance after you got sick sean?

Sean Cranley said...

Once again we see what waste of time Nemo is. His first link is from The Foundry, whatever the hell that is, and to arrive at its predetermined conclusion it cites Only Two slides from a CBO presentation from May 28, 2010, nearly FOUR YEARS OLD! Got anymore desiccated soundbytes Nemo?

Here, try this less archaic analysis direct from the CBO (ie not filtered by GOPpropagandists):

EXCERPT: What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period. END

So if it's not saving the federal government money (it sure has saved ME money!) how then would it's repeal add $109 billion to the deficit Nemo?

Nemo then hangs his hat on the problems with the website, which has had it's problems, but is not going to be a factor in the long-term success of Obamacare.

Then Nemo links to a voluminous website and claims that the " the health insuranceless can still sign up for off-marketplace insurance or Medicaid after open enrollment anytime." But he doesn't direct us to where this pearl of information can be found. Personally I didn't see it and I don't believe Nemo's claim.

So really Nemo, anyone can sign up for Medicaid, can I? Last time I checked Medicaid has been around for decades and is not part of Obamacare. What is off-marketplace insurance and how does that stack up?

Please be more specific on where this information can be found and how it helps make your case. Simply inserting links into text is not that same as presenting a coherent argument that can be properly evaluated by the reader.

Nemo said...

Let's destroy your reply one point at a time.

Look for the following in the link provided:

•March 31st, 2014 - Open enrollment for 2014 ends on March 31st, 2014. You can still sign up for off-marketplace insurance or Medicaid after open enrollment.

Here's the link again in case you forgot.

Believe me now? I will not call you a liar for past untruths about healthcare signups. Going forward however, now that you know, I trust that you will not spread this particular unfact, that would be a lie.

By the way, Brule was great.

Sean Cranley said...

You're an idiot. Do you ever take even a moment to think about or research the information you're using to attempt to make your points?

Off-marketplace insurance is that same, lame and expensive Pre-Obamacare insurance you've always been able to buy. Which of course means that you'll be purchasing it as an individual (expensive) and be subject to the same exclusions for pre-existing conditions (discriminatory) and potential for getting kicked off when get sick (dangerous), among other things.

Similarly, you've been able to sign up for Medicaid for decades now, IF that is, you meet the eligibility requirements:

EXCERPT: Affordable Care Act of 2010 Expands Medicaid Eligibility in 2014

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010, creates a national Medicaid minimum eligibility level of 133% of the federal poverty level ($29,700 for a family of four in 2011) for nearly all Americans under age 65. This Medicaid eligibility expansion goes into effect on January 1, 2014 but states (without A$$holes fer Gubnah!) can choose to expand coverage with Federal support anytime before this date-see related Federal Policy Guidance and states that have expanded Medicaid prior to 2014. See Eligibility Provisions in the Affordable Care Act. END

So you see point you were attempting to make has no bearing on the efficacy of Obamacare whatsoever. In fact Obamacare was designed for middle-class Americans and not the poor and near poor who are eligible for Medicaid.

Oh but thank's for the excerpt, I shouldn't have to search an entire website to try and find the little tidbit of info that believe is somehow relevant.

I could take one point each for your off-market insurance error and your Medicaid fail, but I'll be generous and call it:

Sean Cranley - 1
Nemo Tistical - 0

Nemo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.