prev <-> next
[2013-10-22 09:53:38] - http://www.salon.com/2013/10/21/dont_ally_with_libertarians_ideologues_co_opt_an_anti_nsa_rally/singleton/ i'm trying to figure out if years of obama have given some progressives permanent brain damage based on the case of the writer of this article. - mig
[2013-10-21 13:28:25] - Blizzard is busy. Dota->All Starts->Heroes; Hearthstone (more Heroes); RoS, and it's not like SC2 or WoW are just idling by. Wonder what's going on with Titan. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-18 16:05:13] - And I'm interested in seeing who the heroes will be. Its kind of funny because a lot of dota heroes are based on Blizzard lore figures they can prettyuch rip a lot of them off from dota if they really wanted to. - mig
[2013-10-18 15:59:32] - I'm curious what the f2p aspect of HotStorm will be. LoL and Dota2 have actually differing models of monetization so I'm wondering if Blizz borrows from one or both or comes up with something completely different. - mig
[2013-10-18 15:29:21] - a: Heh, OK, that makes sense. Private business in healthcare is pretty messed up because of the strange economic incentives going on there, no matter the country. And our current government side-show has been quite impressive. It's the greatest form of free entertainment in the world, save that it isn't free. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-18 15:01:11] - xpovos: haha, uhhh, i saw someone who had written it, tongue in cheek, online. (it was probably about health care in europe vs usa if you care). i don't 100% agree with the quote, but i was sure you guys would absolutely love it. ~a
[2013-10-18 12:08:36] - The comments pretty thoroughly cover my other concern about the study, which is their whole definition of "science knowledge" possibly/probably being skewed. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-18 12:05:25] - mig: Cool. I was about to complain about his complete misuse of statistics until I realized he was being sarcastic, and that I'd partially mis-read his sentence when he started talking about the Tea Party's correlation. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-18 12:02:00] - This is a bit of a deceptive triangle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/15/analysis-obamacare-glitches-scare-off-many-web-site-users/ -- Xpovos
[2013-10-18 11:35:12] - the quote i found the most telling: "But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico)" - mig
[2013-10-18 11:33:57] - http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html some interesting stuff. - mig
[2013-10-18 11:13:22] - paul: more accurately, it's going to resemble mostly warcraft 3, sans the army building component of it. - mig
[2013-10-18 08:40:38] - title: I'll bite; what's your impetus. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-17 17:34:11] - http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/heroes/ New Blizzard game announced, which looks to incorporate elements of Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft. -Paul
[2013-10-17 13:17:37] - so if you are going to say, "we have to pass it to know what's in it" It'd be helpful if you actually find out what's in it after you pass it... - mig
[2013-10-17 13:06:06] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/17/obama-administration-didnt-know-when-oba Obama Administration Didn't Know When Obamacare's Mandate Penalty Deadline Was Until a Tax Prep Firm Told Them. -Paul
[2013-10-17 12:26:31] - Huh... NPH is going to do a stint as Hedwig on Broadway. That's pretty nifty. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-17 11:52:10] - a: I'm planning on it. I think he's actually going to be in Arlington (with Gary Johnson!) on the 26th, if you're back by then (although I don't think I can make that). -Paul
[2013-10-17 11:43:53] - the owner of the Silk Road drug website, was arrested in a murder-for-hire sting. the writer of the movie "shutter island" will be writing a movie about the sting. i doubt this "bitcoin movie" will actually come to fruition. ~a
[2013-10-17 11:38:50] -
make sure you go, paul! you know i'd come if i were in town. ~a[2013-10-17 11:29:28] - https://www.facebook.com/events/432205660224164 Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia will be at a meet and greet at the American Tap Room in the reston town center tomorrow evening. -Paul
[2013-10-16 20:24:02] - a/aaron: mmm mmm? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-16 17:06:57] - mmm ~a
[2013-10-16 09:06:10] - mmm - aaron
[2013-10-16 03:34:06] - im out of town until monday. ~a
[2013-10-15 16:24:38] - I guess that all explains the relatively light traffic on the message board, even if a lot of those people don't post. -Paul
[2013-10-15 15:52:08] - paul: vinnie's in australia - aaron
[2013-10-15 11:37:40] - via TMQ: "Federal law forbids hiring anyone who is in the country illegally. A new California law forbids firing anyone because they are in the country illegally." Oof, what a fun one. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-15 10:46:17] - Paul: I'm back from CT and am vacation free until Thanksgiving. When does the federal government get back from it's vacation? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-15 10:12:35] - So, when do people get back from their assorted vacations? I think Dewey and Dee are back from their cruise, but are Nina/Pierce and Adrian/Audrey still out of town? Anybody else I'm missing? -Paul
[2013-10-14 16:45:12] - It's not shown in the clip but at the end of the show, Stewart, still being confused about the non-answers given about the whole delays for businesses but not individuals wonders aloud, "Maybe she's just lying to me?". - mig
[2013-10-14 16:40:18] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCXNeHmx9Qw jon stewart grills HHS head Saebilus over the exchanges. it gets really amusing. - mig
[2013-10-14 09:10:38] - Xpovos: Affirmative for me. -Paul
[2013-10-14 09:03:53] - So I'm assuming most everyone is working today? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-12 13:56:05] - a: post a query in the local newspaper... that sends to work these days. but, yeah let me know what you find out. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-12 04:44:21] - aaron: "alternatively they both could be making compromises then one side going back on their agreement" so i guess it was that (1:00). ~a
[2013-10-11 12:53:23] - xpovos: i'm in rome for a week or so. should i ask il papa for any clarifications of the aca? ~a
[2013-10-11 12:21:35] - paul: because I guess the perceived options are "bland and boring" or "not at all" if the Rs and Ds follow through on threats to boycott debates. - mig
[2013-10-11 12:15:33] - mig: I know, but WHY? Why does the media want debates that are bland and boring a predictable? It's like if a news station was handed some big scandal with a sitting politician and they said, "Nah, no thanks, we're not interested in that". -Paul
[2013-10-11 12:05:01] - so that's why you see the arbitrary restrictions (so it's not too blantant), and the inevitable moving of the arbitrary goalposts if the 3rd party actually comes close to meeting the criteria. - mig
[2013-10-11 12:04:01] - aaron: I don't know.
I think it's like farmville in that it's a game that uses facebook for matching people up, but I didn't know you can fight each other in farmville (although I assume you can in Clash of Clans). -Paul[2013-10-11 12:03:44] - paul: well i do know in the past R and D candidates have threatened to refuse to participate in debates when the spsonsor considers allowing a third party. - mig
[2013-10-11 12:02:33] - paul: isn't clash of clans like farmville where you can fight eachother? - aaron
[2013-10-11 11:50:34] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/11/libertarian-candidate-sarvis-not-invited I completely don't understand why the media is so against including third party candidates in debates. You would think they would be falling all over themselves to include any sort of wild card which could shake things up and increase ratings or be a potential story. -Paul
[2013-10-11 10:39:12] - Does anybody here play Clash of Clans and want to explain to me how it works?
-Paul[2013-10-11 09:56:59] - paul: it particularly doesn't help his cause in nova. let's of people around here focused on the gov't shutdown. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-11 09:05:41] - mig: I've even heard that Cuccinelli's campaign has been hit hard by the shutdown, because voters tend to associate his hard-line type of personality with the Tea Party types that people blame for the shutdown. -Paul
[2013-10-11 09:04:40] - mig: Probably that the Democrats have a great position right now (Republicans are getting most of the blame and the longer this goes on, the more it hurts them) and there doesn't need to be anybody publicly pointing a finger at them Democrats to screw it up. -Paul
[2013-10-11 08:43:31] - a: Reproduction related is a big part of it. but it's more complicated than that. I think they could choose the nuclear option of non coverage if forced to violate consciences. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-10 18:41:11] - also, we can wildly speculate on what Harry Reid's comments to Vincent Gray ("Don't screw it up, okay?) mean ... - mig
[2013-10-10 18:38:38] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-gray-confronts-reid-on-capitol-steps-over-shutdowns-impact-on-city/2013/10/09/02577428-3103-11e3-89ae-1 seems now some blame is starting the head the democrats way. - mig
[2013-10-10 17:33:07] - xpovos: "I anticipate severely negative impacts on my healthcare insurance options due to the interaction between the law and my employer" which impacts? reproduction related? ~a
[2013-10-10 10:49:07] - Paul: You're not going to get an argument from me that government spending isn't wasteful, even military. It's what government does best! -- Xpovos
[2013-10-10 10:29:02] - Xpovos: http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10/07/pentagon-is-sending-new-cargo-planes-str This is a bigger boondoggle. Ordering a bunch of fancy planes and them sending them almost immediately to the "boneyard". -Paul
[2013-10-10 10:25:54] - mig: Right, which was kind of my point. If I have cancer, or am having a heart attack, I probably want the best health care, not necessarily the most efficient (not saying that the US is necessarily the best or better than Europe). -Paul
[2013-10-10 10:13:29] - a: It started as an attempt to gain official information. As I gained unofficial information I became convinced I WAS eligible, because of confusing or misleading regulations... And ultimately I'm looking because I anticipate severely negative impacts on my healthcare insurance options due to the interaction between the law and my employer. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-10 10:11:47] - paul: i would guess that efficiency would be tying the quality of care to the amount being spent, which is something I'd probably believe to be true that europe scores better in efficiency. - mig
[2013-10-10 10:09:24] - Anyone seen this? What a boondoggle. http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/10/report-glitchy-healthcare-gov-cost-taxpayers-more-than-634-million-to-build/ -- Xpovos
[2013-10-10 10:07:30] - paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrcjhsrOhs actually, john stossel basically got Michael Moore to admit that the whole puppies and rainbows image of Cuba's healthcare system is sort of bullshit in rarther amusing fashion (he essentially says ok, ok you got me on cuba, let's talk britain or canada instead!), link is somewhat nsfw. - mig
[2013-10-10 09:47:14] - because everybody just thinks of the positives and nobody thinks of the downsides. If it was all puppies and flowers, then why stop at 30 hour work weeks? 1 hour work weeks sound better, with mandatory 52 hours of PTO a year. -Paul
[2013-10-10 09:45:52] - a: Also #7 is a pet peeve of mine. Gurkie and her family were recently complaining about how the US is the only industrialized nation that doesn't have mandatory maternity leave (or something like that). Sure, those kind of nice European perks of 30 hour work weeks and mandatory sick time and PTO sound nice... -Paul
[2013-10-10 09:38:02] - a: It's probably easy to be efficient when you're prescription for everything is a band-aid and an aspirin.
(Intentionally tongue in cheek). -Paul[2013-10-10 09:37:18] - a: I know some people are really enamored by Cuban health care and how they have universal coverage while our backward little country doesn't, but I don't think even the most hardcore supporters of Cuban health care would say it's better than what we have in the US. -Paul
[2013-10-10 09:36:37] - a: I know the list was probably supposed to be mostly humorous, but I'm curious how they scored the first item ("efficiency" of health care). As far as I'm concerned, "efficiency" doesn't necessarily mean better. I did a little digging and found that Cuba is ranked higher than the US in that study. -Paul
[2013-10-10 05:36:18] - i find this interesting because i'm spending 3 weeks in europe: 16 ways europeans are just better at life. ~a
[2013-10-10 04:09:21] - xpovos: sorry if i missed the post about day 1. why are you using this? don't you have employer provided insurance? ~a
[2013-10-09 20:12:19] - Healthcare update: day 8. No, actually, I'm not eligible. Actually, this is good news because I can finally stop trying to get the website to give me an account. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 17:06:12] - paul: no, klaus inexplicably comes back in the next episode - aaron
[2013-10-09 16:44:17] - Also, any thoughts on Yellen's nomination to take over the Fed? From everything I've read, she sounds even worse than Bernanke... -Paul
[2013-10-09 16:27:26] - Aaron: Huh, so did the series just continue on from that point forward with Klaus being dead? -Paul
[2013-10-09 16:24:52] - xpovos: it's mostly touching because of the religious/end of world themes, and the circumstances of stan's death. it's probably the best AD i've ever seen, although i also really enjoyed the most adequate christmas ever which hit a lot of similar themes - aaron
[2013-10-09 16:22:22] - xpovos: ha ha, no, the episode's premise involves stan and his wife left behind during the rapture. stan dies in a selfless way during the following apocalypse, so he goes to his own personalized version of heaven, which is exactly like his house except klaus (the fish) is dead - aaron
[2013-10-09 15:08:37] - aaron: Was it a 'touching' episode because of the punching? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 15:06:55] - http://www.angryflower.com/bobdie.gif bob the angry flower had a different take - aaron
[2013-10-09 15:02:02] - daniel: american dad went with the "instancing" approach on heaven, it was actually a really touching episode. so if your heaven was you punching people in the face, you'd go into a room and there'd be a bunch of people waiting to be punched in the face. if those people went to heaven they'd be in a different room - aaron
[2013-10-09 15:02:01] - Xpovos: A dead Schroedinger?
-Paul[2013-10-09 14:49:46] - Paul: What's inside God's Schroedinger's box? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 14:44:24] - Daniel: Yeah, I've had a very similar discussion with Dave before. I would say book characters don't really have free will. Ron can't choose NOT to marry Hermione. His future is set in stone and he has no ability to deviate from that. -Paul
[2013-10-09 14:40:52] - Daniel: Christianity definitely has a paradise, Heaven, but depending on which branch you are (and whether or not you consider Mormons to be Christian), the nature of Heaven is widely disputed and can be among the most significant departures between sects. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 14:12:06] - Xpovos: Though andrea and I also came up with the instancing idea but also thought it seemed a bit of a cop-out, so at least we had the same thought process there. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 14:11:40] - Xpovos: Is that part of heaven sole the realm of Islam though? Pretty sure christian heaven is supposed to be 'paradise' as well no? -Daniel
[2013-10-09 14:07:54] - Daniel: Resonant self-imaging? Paul thinks he's playing with you, but he's really playing with a mental projection of you that he remembers. Honestly, I think that's a cop-out answer, but the whole of Islam's paradise is something I can't explain because I'm not Muslim and find their religion to be full of holes. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 13:37:09] - Like what if Paul's version of paradise is playing Power Grid with me for eternity but I want to play something else over and over for eternity with Paul. We both can't win. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 13:35:08] - Xpovos: Yeah that guy. The conversation made me think about how a place could be "paradise" for multiple people all with free will, since some level of conflict seems inherent with that. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 13:28:06] - I've grabbed a screenshot of "success url" for posterity.
-- Xpovos[2013-10-09 13:27:19] - Daniel: Was that the imam? I may have heard the same story, it's apparently a running feature, though, because he mentioned they'd be talking about the afterlife with other religious leaders. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 13:23:59] - Paul: Just cause our hypothetical God in this situation knows the outcome of what someone is going to choose doesn't mean that person doesn't get to make the choice on their own. Its like book characters, you can read ahead and know what choice they are going to make but you aren't making it for them. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 13:22:46] - Xpovos: Those seem like similar questions. There was a guy on NPR talking about heaven yesterday and it made me think about how it would all work. Like if in my heaven I want to punch people in the face isn't that going to be a problem for everyone else? -Daniel
[2013-10-09 13:09:23] - Xpovos: Yeah, and we're pretty much past that first week "slack" period that I was talking about. I'm not at all surprised that things are still a mess, though, that's part of the reason why I felt confident cutting them some slack for the first week.
-Paul[2013-10-09 13:06:42] - Daniel: a related fun question is: are there even choices in heaven? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 13:05:57] - Healthcare.gov update. Logging in today redirects me to the website, "success url" which is a blank page. I swear, I cannot make shit up that is as unbelievably awful as this process is. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-09 13:05:00] - Daniel: Well, since we're assuming heaven exists for the purposes of this question, I'm going to assume God exists, and I don't think people CAN have free will if there exists an all-knowing God. -Paul
[2013-10-09 13:01:54] - Completely New Topic: Do people have free will once they are in heaven (for the purposes of this topic lets assume a classical paradise version of heaven)? -Daniel
[2013-10-09 12:01:18] - Daniel: Three Baconators and two large fries?
-Paul[2013-10-09 11:41:37] - Oddly enough I think I'm going to Wendy's for lunch today. Any suggestions on my meal Paul? -Daniel
[2013-10-09 10:32:05] - mig: Sure, he compromised, and I'm being a hard-ass by saying he needs to drop Wendy's altogether and go get a salad somewhere, but sometimes being a hard-ass is the right thing to do. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:31:16] - Paul: I would agree that "increase taxes and increase spending" isn't going to solve the problem. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 10:31:14] - mig: To me, it's like if I had a friend who has high blood pressure and high cholesterol and a family history of heart disease, and he goes to Wendy's and orders two Baconators and a large fries. I tell him maybe he should reconsider and he decides to compromise and drop the large fries. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:29:41] - mig: Yeah, and that's where I totally see Daniel's point (Republicans are unwilling to compromise), but I don't see that as a huge criticism. Spending and the debt is a huge problem, and it's never going to get fixed by compromises where we increase taxes and increase spending. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:23:19] - try and force it. - mig
[2013-10-09 10:23:15] - and going back to R's and being unwilling to compromise I honestly think it's good that somebody is being a hardass about spending (even if there's some skepticism about motives). The point bears repeating: the point of the debt ceiling is to trigger a discussion about spending. D's clearly don't want to have that discussion so I think it's appropriate for R's to
[2013-10-09 10:20:11] - daniel: I'm just trying to figure out what spending reductions democrats are willing to accept because they've screamed bloody murder every time something specific is proposed. - mig
[2013-10-09 10:09:58] - Daniel: Ah, ok. Well, we might agree on that, then. It's hard to judge, because the Democrats have the Presidency and Senate, so they have the upper hand and the Republicans can pretty much JUST be gadflies. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:09:23] - The R's seem to want to dictate how the country is run instead of trying to figure out how to blend their wants with the Dem's wants. I think to miguel's point it is easier for the Dem's to claim that while R's are being stubborn. If the R's ever actually come to the table then we would actually see if the D's were actually willing to make more cuts. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 10:07:43] - because they aren't actually in a strong position. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 10:07:33] - Oh no, I'm not claiming that the D's have compromised on anything yet. Why would they have to? But they've been willing to work with the R's. I think if the R's were willing to increase taxes they could have gotten some spending cuts out of Obama. However since they never want to do that the Dem's just shrug and say "your loss" then the R's eventually cave...
[2013-10-09 10:05:02] - Daniel: So both share blame/credit for that. I mean, I guess we're not getting those bigger budgets that Obama wants, so we can kind of credit the Republicans for that, but it's hard to say that's been a compromise by Democrats. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:04:07] - daniel: I asked about proposal because I always keep hearing the assertion democrats have been willing to talk about lowering spending but what I actually hear from their actual mouths is about how the sequester is the apocalypse and that "the cupboard is bare". - mig
[2013-10-09 10:03:35] - Daniel: I'm actually trying to think of an area where Democrats have compromised and given in on anything but I'm having trouble thinking of anything. They got their way with the Bush tax cuts. They got the debt limit increased. Sequestration happened, but I think that was actually a plan that Democrats came up with in conjunction with Republicans... -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:01:49] - Daniel: Democrats want to increase spending a lot, Republicans want to increase it less (or some actually want to decrease it), but because they can't agree on anything we've been mostly stuck on minimal changes. -Paul
[2013-10-09 10:00:58] - Daniel: As far as I can tell, the simple explanation is that federal spending exploded under Obama at the very beginning, but has remained fairly flat since then (I think mostly because we've been operating under continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets). -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:59:47] - Daniel: That's why I think it's hard to discuss this between us because even though we're trying to compare apples to apples, I think we're comparing apples to oranges. -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:59:02] - Daniel: Well, the numbers are unfortunately pretty complicated (I don't fully understand them as well) and are all messed up because of the stimulus (a one time spike in spending) and the fact that I don't think the government has had an actual budget in years. -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:59:00] - mig: Did I reference a democratic proposal? I'm not sure what you are referring to? I just think in general over the last several years D's have been willing to accept lower spending (with that means slightly cloudy now) in exchange for tax increases and its been the R's that said no. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:56:18] - Paul: I guess I'm not sure on the numbers so that is possible. In my head the D's have been willing to accept lower spending if the R's were willing to increase taxes. I guess I'm not sure if that was actually a reduction in the overall spending on the gov or a decrease on the amount the D's wanted to increase. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:53:19] - Daniel: Whereas you're coming from another area where you see a reduction in what the Democrats wanted to spend (which is still an increase) as a cut, and that's compromise. -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:52:37] - Daniel: I think the problem is that we're coming from two different baseline assumptions here. As somebody who wants lower government spending, I don't see any sort of compromise by Democrats when taxes went up AND spending went up (which is what has largely been happening recently). -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:52:22] - daniel: What democrat proposal are we talking about? This is the party that claimed that the sequester (which didn't even reduce spending, just slowed the increase in spending) was cutting government to the bone and there's no nothing left to cut now. - mig
[2013-10-09 09:51:16] - Daniel: If we're talking about the Bush tax cuts... those eventually got extended for the middle class and repealed for the wealthy, right? -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:50:49] - Daniel: Are we talking about the current standoff or overall during Obama's term? I feel like we're talking about a lot of different standoffs with different sets of compromises. -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:50:17] - Shouldn't the R's have any obligation to make an intellectual or rational case for their goals? Currently their reasoning for going along with their plans seems to be "to avoid the destruction of america" when they are the ones inflicting it? -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:48:57] - but not with the threat of default sitting there. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:48:29] - mig: I think D's have been willing to compromise on fiscal stuff. They wanted a package of taxes and less spending but the R's were never willing to make a deal. Now the R's are trying to force the spending cuts only part in order to be willing to pay bills previously incurred by Congress. If R's want to change the equation I think the D's are willing to talk.-Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:46:41] - government spending and what is and what isn't necessary. When democrats say "raise the ceiling unconditionaly", that indicates an unwillingness to compromise. - mig
[2013-10-09 09:46:08] - One thing I will say that it was definitely silly for the GOP to try and make this about ACA. They had no leverage to stop or slow the law, so it was kind of pointless. However, I'll go back to my comment earlier about: the point of hte debt ceiling in the first place is that when we are close to hitting it, then there should be a disucssion about the level of
[2013-10-09 09:43:34] - they get their way doesn't seem like a good way to go about it. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:43:22] - If we are defining that continuing the gov as currently constituted is giving the D's everything they want then yes since everything they want is what has already been passed into law, that seems a reasonable position at the moment. The R's are obviously free to try and change the law (see their 40+ votes to repeal Obamacare) but shutting down everything until...
[2013-10-09 09:41:03] - in order to fund the gov. -Daniel
[2013-10-09 09:40:55] - I think on fiscal issues I'm totally willing to say that D's have been willing to compromise and that R's haven't. R's the whole time have insisted taxes not be part of it and want the cuts to large come from domestic spending. Thats the principal that I think D's are standing against. Now the R's are trying to get concessions on that front or on Obamacare ...
[2013-10-09 09:39:02] - a: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/reid-we-are-not-going-negotiate Strange that I can't find a more mainstream source for this particular quote, so take it with a grain of salt. -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:36:27] - a: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/obama-calls-john-boehner_n_4064154.html -Paul
[2013-10-09 09:18:33] - aaron's post suggests otherwise. ~a
[2013-10-09 09:17:37] - who? ~a
[2013-10-09 09:12:41] - a: Funny you mention that, because I think all but the most hardcore Democratic supporters would say it's the Republicans who are making compromises and the Democrats who refuse to even negotiate. -Paul
[2013-10-09 06:09:27] - aaron: "was it a shift in the media or is something about the situation more black-and-white than before?" i guess nobody here will know for sure, but it could be that one side is making compromise and the other side isn't meeting half way. alternatively they both could be making compromises then one side going back on their agreement. ~a
[2013-10-08 19:07:47] - spending. - mig
[2013-10-08 19:07:43] - well here's the thing though, isn't the point of the debt ceiling to kind of install a mechanism for the government not to go crazy with overspending? That if we reach the ceiling, there should be some honest discussion about tough decision in spending? This is why it kind of drives me up a wall when people bitch and moan about the TP being hardliners about cutting
[2013-10-08 17:39:40] - Daniel: Well, yeah, because the government continuing as currently established (I am assuming you are including a debt ceiling raise as "continuing as currently established) would be basically giving the Democrats everything they want.
-Paul[2013-10-08 17:25:57] - I think the idea of demanding a change to laws or the gov gets shut down is worse to me than demanding the gov continue as currently established. -Daniel
[2013-10-08 17:24:42] - -Daniel
[2013-10-08 17:24:39] - Paul: I dont think I would support it if the tables were turned but I guess its hard to say that 100%. I think I'm ok with D's saying we aren't going to let you force concessions using the threat of gov shutdown. Especially since all of these bills have all been short term everytime they come up it seems Rs want to dictate more concessions they can't otherwise get.
[2013-10-08 17:03:12] - Daniel: I mean, yeah, it's not ideal that a shutdown and a default is hanging over these negotiations, but the Democrats are basically saying, "We will not negotiate with you at all until you give us everything we want". -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:59:52] - Daniel: I mean, I get what you're saying, and I partially agree, but I'm also sympathetic to the Republicans and feel like the Democrats deserve some blame as well. -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:59:09] - Daniel: Would you still say people shouldn't shut down the government over their own personal wish list? -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:58:50] - Daniel: But is that just because it's a law you support? What if it was over funding for something you were against, like funding for gay conversion therapy or something? Since there was never a budget debate, this would be the first (and only?) chance for people to try to strike it down before it goes into full affect. -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:28:12] - Paul: The difference being that the R's want to undo Obamacare? And the Dem's just want to keep the law that was passed and approved? So I guess my answer is no I don't see them the same way. -Daniel
[2013-10-08 16:26:36] - for their personal wish list stuff? -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:26:28] - I agree, though, that this isn't really the appropriate time or place to be having these kinds of debates. The problem is that congress hasn't passed a budget in... I don't even know how long. That's the time when these debates should be happening, and since those budgets aren't getting passed, when else are the Republicans (or anybody) supposed to be standing firm...
[2013-10-08 16:25:16] - Daniel: Isn't that what the Democrats are doing too, though, and to an even more "extreme" extent? They're basically saying the Republicans have to give in to all of their demands or else there will be no compromising and no funding of government. -Paul
[2013-10-08 16:04:06] - They only seem interested in funding the gov if that comes along with political objectives of theirs. That seems like an irresponsible way of pursuing your political objectives. So I think people are responding to that. IMO. -Daniel
[2013-10-08 16:03:00] - I think this is partly why R's are getting more of the blame (in my head anyway) for the shutdown http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-bob-schieffer-grills-sen-cornyn-cant-close-govt-over-personal-wish-list/ -Daniel
[2013-10-08 14:45:01] - But, the Tea party as hardliners is attractive too, particularly since that's what they say themselves. They get elected because 'mainstream' Republicans compromised too much, so their mandate is to not compromise. (Candidate) Obama says he'll bridge gaps. TP says they'll hold the line. Take them at their word, or watch what they do? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-08 14:43:33] - A lot of it comes down to which competing narrative do you want to believe. "Tea party are hardliners" or "Obama is an inept politician". Note, both can be true. I've been saying for years that Obama lacks skill in negotiating and the sausage-making business of politics. He's also disinclined to let up anything on his single 'victory'. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-08 14:22:57] - Aaron: I also think it's a little odd that the Republicans are getting most of the blame this time around. I think it's because of the reputation the tea party has regarding the debt, but in a lot of ways the Democrats are the ones refusing to compromise at all and really driving a lot of this concern about the government shutdown and default. -Paul
[2013-10-08 14:17:47] - Xpovos: Thanks. I'll pass the info along to Gurkie. -Paul
[2013-10-08 11:48:26] - mig: to be completely skeptical of the republicans' motives (or perhaps just realistic), the only reason they want to pass that legislation is so that they can continue the strike past the default deadline. if my priority was, "i want the government operational as soon as possible and to not default on the debt" then, logically i'd want to block it - aaron
[2013-10-08 11:46:36] - mig: those two beliefs aren't incompatible. you can believe "the US absolutely shouldn't default on the debt" and "the US absolutely should restore its government as soon as possible" and not want to concede on either one. - aaron
[2013-10-08 11:28:45] - Paul: (this applies to mig and Dewey too) just got the results in from the 6-month check-up and the weight is 20.375 lbs. So nowhere near what I said initially, but I'll blame that on fatherly stupidity. That's still enough to be in the 97th percentile. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-08 11:06:44] - And on top of that, claim the other side is the one playing "chicken" with the full faith and credit of the US. - mig
[2013-10-08 11:04:49] - sure that doesn't happen. - mig
[2013-10-08 11:04:45] - aaron: I can understand a dem argument about things like hospitals and parks, but the payments on the debt are a different animal. For one, I'm surprsed that they aren't a priority for payment for the treasury already. And dems can't have it both ways. You can't claim the apocalypse if the us defaults on the debt, and then simulataneously block efforts to make
[2013-10-08 10:13:45] - mig: if you start drawing exceptions for different government services based on who "needs it the most" or who makes the best headlines, then it 1. starts treating the shutdown state as "business as usual" 2. rewards brinksmanship - aaron
[2013-10-08 10:11:44] - mig: i read about a similar bill where republicans wanted to draw an exception for one specific hospital, i think, which made headlines because they couldn't provide ~200 cancer payments treatment during the shutdown. republicans wanted to draw an exception so that those people would receive payment, and the democrats argument against it was... - aaron
[2013-10-08 09:49:02] - again who are the real hostage takers here? - mig
[2013-10-08 09:48:54] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304176904579111331134686614.html an interesting tidbit I saw this morning. So republicans have been attempting to pass legislation that ensures that treasury makes payment on the debt the top priority. Democrats have opposed it. Reid won't allow a vote on it and the president has threatened a veto. So I have to ask ...
[2013-10-08 09:44:51] - aaron: because the media in general despises the tea party influence this time around? - mig
[2013-10-08 09:43:12] - was it a shift in the media or is something about the situation more black-and-white than before? - aaron
[2013-10-08 09:42:49] - why is the blame for the government shutdown on the republicans "not backing down", and not on the democrats for "not drawing a better compromise?" i ask because when this has happened previously the media treated it slightly more like a, "both sides are failing to compromise" thing whereas this time it seems more unanimous that the republicans are at fault - aaron
[2013-10-08 01:07:47] - "Mr. Simpson, this government computer can process over nine tax returns per day."
[2013-10-07 12:32:58] - "Oops. You didn't check your email in time. You should've gotten an email from the Marketplace with a link, but too much time has passed for that link to work. Re-enter your information now, and we'll send you another email." Yep, I get to re-register all over again. I love this system! -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 12:32:27] - Well, that's an odd new error message. Apparently clicking on the link by e-mail within ten minutes isn't fast enough. It was much faster than ten minutes, but I can't confirm how much time was their fuck ups vs just me multi-tasking. But I have time stamps for not more than ten minutes. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 12:21:49] - "[...] religious or ceremonial uses of tobacco (for example, by American Indians and Alaska Natives) are specifically exempt under this final rule. This approach establishes a minimum standard to assure consistency in the individual and small group health insurance markets and simplifies administration of the tobacco rating factor." -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 12:21:04] - Found it: "Specifically, for purposes of this final rule, we define ‘‘tobacco use’’ as use of tobacco on average of four or more times per week within no longer than the past six months. Further, tobacco use must be defined in terms of when a tobacco product was last used. Tobacco includes all tobacco products. However, [...]"
[2013-10-07 12:13:07] - Side note: any idea on how the federal government has finally decided to determine if someone "uses tobacco" or not? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 12:12:34] - Paul: And those people are even further up shit creek than I am, because that error message is useless (potentially worse than useless) for them. They might be eligible but are being told, effectively, that they aren't unless they solve a math equation. You have to LIE to the calculator to get real data. Revert to previous discussion, hurrah for jail! -- Xpovoso
[2013-10-07 12:04:13] - Xpovos: Some people can't.
-Paul[2013-10-07 12:02:44] - own coverage through the insurance offered by your employer." What a useful error message provided by the only source of genuine data on the market exchanges. I didn't ask you if I was eligible, I asked how much the plan costs. I KNOW I'm fucking eligible. I can do math. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 12:01:16] - In general, employees who are offered insurance through work are not eligible for subsidized exchange coverage, so long as their insurance meets specified requirements. You would only be eligible for subsidized exchange coverage if your income is between 1 and 4 times the federal poverty level and you would have to pay more than 9.5% of your household income for your
[2013-10-07 11:11:57] - Because what they're basically saying is, "Rather than grapple with tough decision on what government spending is actually necessary, we are going to threaten a potential disatourous scenario so we can avoid ever having to make any legitamate discussion or debate." - mig
[2013-10-07 11:08:15] - mig: Ah, ok. Gotcha. I misunderstood the question. I suspect not, but I honestly have no idea. -Paul
[2013-10-07 11:06:32] - And it's one of the reasons I get annoyed when the "don't raise the ceiling" side are called hostage takers or other such nonsense. Default can be completley avoided without raising the ceiling, but the other side in equating not raising the ceiling with default, are in my eyes the real hostage takers. - mig
[2013-10-07 11:02:11] - paul: That's why I said it would be a willful decision. Merely not raising the debt ceiling won't cause a default, it would require the government making the willful decision to not make interest/principle payments to default on the debt. So I guess to clarify my question, will the government actually do that knowing full well the potential consequences? - mig
[2013-10-07 10:56:59] - mig: Regardless, I fully expect the Republicans to back down before it comes to that, just like I expected them to back down before the "shutdown".
-Paul[2013-10-07 10:55:39] - mig: Yes. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-07 10:55:25] - mig: I'm not sure if I fully understand it, but just because the debt ceiling isn't raised... that doesn't mean the US has to go into default, right? We take in enough in taxes to cover interest on the debt (and then some). -Paul
[2013-10-07 10:46:45] - So, just a random question to all about the whole debt ceiling pissing match: if push comes to shove, will the people running the government actually make the willful decision to default on the national debt if the ceiling isn't raised? - mig
[2013-10-07 10:38:52] - xpovos: well of course they are, because the glitches and problems people supposadly are encountering are almost certainly myths propogated by the conservative media. - mig
[2013-10-07 09:22:30] - Paul:
. Don't jail me, bro. -- Xpovos[2013-10-07 09:17:53] - Xpovos: Did you learn nothing from your Xbox Live problems? And now you're doing it with an organization that can throw you in jail?
-Paul[2013-10-05 20:49:17] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101087965 bastion of conservative reporting, that CNBC. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-04 20:30:21] - Successfully creating an account does not grant you access to the exchange, however. You get bumped to log in with your new credential, then asked to wait, then log in again... and then the log in doesn't work anymore. Maybe they killed it for having obviously fraudulent data? I'm not sure I want to credit them with that level of sophistication. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-04 19:30:23] - The continuing saga of my own health exchange travails. I was able to successfully create a fraudulent account finally. Why fraudulent? Well, because I can't get information without an account, and I'm sure as hell not giving them my real information until I get their real information. In related news: I have a new e-mail address. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-04 15:08:22] - So essentially he's farther along the process of acquiring insurance than most other people but he's not quite done yet. - mig
[2013-10-04 15:06:42] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/is-obamacares-celebrity-enrollee-actually-signed-up/ so some clarification. Chad has enrolled in the marketplace but not yet enrolled in a specific insurance plan, something that it seems most outlets (including the author of this article) assumed that he did. - mig
[2013-10-04 14:09:08] - mig: http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacare-quadruples-chads-premiums-supporters-call-success-story Cato also had a funny story on him, about how he could've gotten cheaper coverage before Obamacare but decided not to for some reason. -Paul
[2013-10-04 14:02:43] - Secondly, if he mades this up for the 15 minutes of fame (which is a possibility), it'll be amusing to see the mea culpas from all the outlets that rushed to promote this story. - mig
[2013-10-04 14:01:19] - I'm amused by a number of things, mostly the type of coverage Chad has been getting so far. I mean, sure, with the way the exchange sites have been operating, that somebody actually managed to sign up would merit some national level attention, but some of the coverage reads like this guy is some sort of folk hero or something. - mig
[2013-10-04 13:52:49] - I guess someone at reason thought it was a little fishy that this guy was listed as a volunteer for OFA (a big pro-dem organization), so they end up finding his dad and asking him about Chad's story, in which he says he's not aware of him or Chad being singed up for anything yet. - mig
[2013-10-04 13:45:52] - In more health exchange related hilarity, I've come across the story of some guy named Chad Henderson, someone who almost instantly became a national news item by claiming he had successfully enrolled in his state's exchange and that he enrolled his dad as well (news outlets are apparently having a hard time finding someone who was actually completed enrollment) ...
[2013-10-04 00:42:20] - oui. ~a
[2013-10-03 17:27:14] - a: National Parks Service? -Paul
[2013-10-03 16:53:32] - paul: memorials are the jurisdiction of the nps. ~a
[2013-10-03 14:12:51] - mig: Well, I checked the comments on a few of Ricky's posts during my lunch break, and it looks like there's been quite the debate between him and Jed. I dunno, I guess a lot of people are bitching about the shutdown on Facebook, but I don't see a lot of red vs blue for whatever reason. -Paul
[2013-10-03 13:25:42] - And it's sold out. ha ha. nevermind - aaron
[2013-10-03 13:19:26] - http://www.miniaturemarket.com/rgg491.html Galaxy Trucker: Anniversary Edition is the deal of the day at miniature market for $65 - aaron
[2013-10-03 12:53:35] - paul: i guess i have more politically active people on my feed, though I've also seen people who don't normally post about politics starting to do so over the whole shutdown bru-haha. - mig
[2013-10-03 12:27:20] - mig: I mean, I feel like even Ricky's posts have been relatively tame in terms of not overly bashing the Democrats. As far as I've seen, most people seem to be happy to just blame all of congress. -Paul
[2013-10-03 12:25:55] - mig: I would tentatively say that mine hasn't, but that could be mostly because the statuses have been fairly non-partisan and I haven't read the comments that followed. -Paul
[2013-10-03 12:18:11] - So, who's facebook feed HASN'T erupted into a red vs. blue pissing match over the last several days? - mig
[2013-10-03 10:44:03] - The only kind of people employed they would need is *maybe* 1-2 security people (which they would need anyways even if it was closed to prevent people from getting in), and maybe some maintainence people who aren't needed all the time. - mig
[2013-10-03 10:43:08] - aaron: WW2 is open air. There's no "builidng". - mig
[2013-10-03 10:04:53] - Aaron: And I think security is probably handled by the DC police or something like that. I doubt each memorial has it's own security detail. -Paul
[2013-10-03 10:04:29] - Aaron: I could be wrong, but I don't think the open air memorials like the WW2 one have any of those. It's all outdoors, so there's no clerks to control admission or operate gift shops or janitors to clean. -Paul
[2013-10-03 09:55:48] - paul: why do you think it costs more money to close a monument than to keep it open? presumably the costs of keeping it open include security for the interior/exterior of the building, clerks to collect donations, operate the gift shop, janitorial staff, and building management.... i mean there's probably 30-50 paychecks there - aaron
[2013-10-02 16:57:30] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/02/robert-sarvis-libertarian-candidate-for Interesting interview with Robert Sarvis. They touch some on his background and his stance on the issues. -Paul
[2013-10-02 16:38:29] - Paul: Totally WMS, right in line with my previous comment: this isn't about money. I was reading something earlier today about how the 1995-6 shutdown ended up costing $1.2B more than it would have to have just continued on normally (over those total 28 days). We might see similar (inflation-adjusted numbers) now. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 16:32:14] - paul: In this case I'm more inclined to think the latter. I also think the latter is worse, because it's a blantantly dishonest attempt to try and avoid a legitamate argument for what is the appropriate level of government spending. - mig
[2013-10-02 16:15:34] - http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10/02/feds-order-shutdown-of-park-it-doesnt-fu Here's another example of the federal government spending more money shutting down a park then it would cost to keep it open (and it's in Virginia). Incompetence or Washington Monument syndrome? Which is worse? -Paul
[2013-10-02 16:13:05] - Xpovos: I think we're coming from the same place here, I just am giving the government a little more slack and probably have lower expectations. I know it's not a good excuse to say that other people also had problems with launches, but I just feel like there are bigger things to rip the law for than for having glitchy systems on the first few days. -Paul
[2013-10-02 16:06:42] - Xpovos: I know, but I'm sure the DMV was an unholy mess when it first started out too. I know this is kind of a backhanded compliment, but did anybody expect this to be working fine the first few days? I certainly didn't. The fact that it wasn't delayed more (even if it should've been) was surprise enough for me. -Paul
[2013-10-02 15:44:58] - Paul: But with the DMV I can always at least get to information, like driving tests, rules of the road, etc. Sure the customer service sucks, and the process is an expensive pain in the ass, but if I read the rules and follow them I only really have to deal with it once every five years. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 15:35:55] - Xpovos: I think you had your expectations set too high. I figured things were going to be a mess for at least the first week, if not first month. Heck, it'll probably be a mess on some level (like DMV level) for it's entire existence. -Paul
[2013-10-02 15:09:58] - Tried again today to get information from the VA exchange. I guess I made progress. Today I got error messages that other people complained about yesterday. I'm still in the "let's give it a week camp", but it's going to be an unimpressive week regardless. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 14:28:46] - There's so much of a failure to understand the health care laws and how they impact people... we've had three and a half years after passing it to figure out what's in it, and we still don't know. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 14:27:30] - So, coming back to yesterday. A large part of the reason the healthcare exchange sites were swamped yesterday wasn't people trying to sign up, but it was people like me trying to get information. https://twitter.com/jahimes/status/385200777653796864. That's not just a technological failure, it's a failure in communication. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 14:26:23] - Government shutdown isn't about money, though... -- Xpovos
[2013-10-02 13:50:41] - Aaron: Seems like it costs more money to close it than it does to keep it open. -Paul
[2013-10-02 12:30:31] - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/tom-clancy-best-selling-novelist-of-military-thrillers-dies-at-66.html?_r=0 not sure if anyone here is a fan of his book or the series of games based on his novels, but Tom Clancy has passed away yesterday. - mig
[2013-10-02 12:13:46] - Although as it's pointed out, the barriacades there would do very little to deter a potential vandal. - mig
[2013-10-02 12:13:16] - or maybe someone does vandalize it (maybe an understandable concern), they won't be able to authorize anyone to work on cleaning it up until the shutdown ends in which case that would look really bad. - mig
[2013-10-02 12:11:48] - paul: some form of (not sure if it's being overly paranoid or not) worrying about liability I'm guessing. Though from the looks of it, it seems to be more effort to try and keep it "closed" than keeping it open. - mig
[2013-10-02 12:01:14] - paul: they close the memorial to save money - aaron
[2013-10-02 11:10:18] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/02/workers-attempt-to-block-off-wwii-memori What IS the reason for "closing" memorials like this? Liability? -Paul
[2013-10-01 16:09:12] - Though I'm not sure I'm buying the whole "overload" thing for their problems either. There was a claim that this was due to 1 milliion people trying to get on the site. Yeah it's a huge number, but in terms of load that appears to me to be a bit low, especially compared to other sites. - mig
[2013-10-01 14:20:28] - Xpovos: Sure, I think we can agree on that. To me, the bigger issue is that this is being "forced" on people, rather than it sucks in terms of implementation. -Paul
[2013-10-01 14:10:24] - Though I'll add if this is something they fix relatively quickly, maybe people (myself included) should calm down a bit about it. But if this are still issues like this for a week or so, then the administration should get pelted with the criticism. - mig
[2013-10-01 14:06:28] - so I think any heat they get for problems is well deserved. - mig
[2013-10-01 14:06:18] - aaron: normally I'm sympathetic to "initial surge" issues, but not in this case for the reasons I've stated. Moreover, the technical issues and how complex this exchange system was going to be weren't exactly secrets and there were definitely questions whether the infrastructure would be ready in time, but the administration decided to stubbornly hold to he deadline
[2013-10-01 14:01:49] - Taxes are also a requirement, too, of course. Unless you don't earn any money. I tell you what, unemployment is looking better and better. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-01 14:01:20] - Paul: I don't disagree, and that gets right back to your "other issues with Obamacare" cop-out answer. Government is a terrible way of doing most business. I'm not at all surprised this is how it's going down, on either part. I'm just frustrated because as mig notes, it's a requirement for many people--possibly myself in the not to distant future. -- Xpovos
[2013-10-01 13:56:32] - Xpovos: I think the "incomprehensible registration process" is just part of the territory when dealing with the government. I mean, have you ever dealt with any kind of federal government agency where things were straightforward and simple? Just thinking of doing my own taxes gives me a headache. -Paul
[2013-10-01 13:55:01] - mig: Ah, ok. Fair. If I were still in devil's advocate mode, I would point out they still have the option of paying the penalty, but I have no pressing desire to argue the "other" side right now.
-Paul[2013-10-01 13:54:21] - xpovos: oh i'm not sure about that part i'm not very educated about this issue. - aaron
[2013-10-01 13:53:20] - i just think this "initial surge" problem is a difficult problem to solve. maybe if they had some kind of equivalent to draft numbers -- and the system was only open to people with last names A-F until october 7th, something weird like that. but the solution isn't as easy as "they should spend more money" or "they should plan better" - aaron
[2013-10-01 13:52:10] - aaron: Server overload errors are one thing, what about the rest of the incomprehensible registration process, including the erroneous (and onerous) instructions for how to create an account? -- Xpovos
[2013-10-01 13:50:40] - any online service wants to spend the minimum amount possible to meet the needs of their customers, and the government is no exception. plus, the government might have additional restrictions since they're dealing with SBU data, it's not like they can necessarily repurpose some servers temporarily, like blizzard does for some of their releases - aaron
[2013-10-01 13:47:50] - or unemployed - mig
[2013-10-01 13:47:23] - if you are self employed, I believe the excahnges are pretty much your only option for insurance. - mig
[2013-10-01 13:47:02] - paul: individual mandate. - mig
[2013-10-01 13:46:13] - mig: More seriously, though, for some people participation is not voluntary? How does that work? -Paul
prev <-> next