Craptastic

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you have a terrific writing style. I ALWAYS read your posts when I see them because they are consistently 1) entertaining 2) well crafted and 3) generally spot-on. I have often LOL after reading your comments. But as someone who listened to Led Zeppelin when they were current rock, not classic rock (yeah... I'm old!!) I have heard them referred to as Zeppelin, Led Zep, Led Zeppelin and if you REALLY want to show off your purist roots, New Yardbirds. With so many other things to talk about, your "Zeppelin" comment did come across as a reach and if you intended it to be funny (your sense of humor comment) that did not come across in the post. Not being snarky, just sharing my observation.

Okay, maybe not everyone gets my sense of humor. But, the entire absurdity of comparing playlists as part of a political campaign should be obvious. When Ryan made his crack comparing his playlist to Obama's, I don't think he was all that serious either. I was using levity in response to levity. But, maybe you are right and Ryan's playlist ends at "L".

Obama's play list starts with blame bush and ends with fail

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you have a terrific writing style. I ALWAYS read your posts when I see them because they are consistently 1) entertaining 2) well crafted and 3) generally spot-on. I have often LOL after reading your comments. But as someone who listened to Led Zeppelin when they were current rock, not classic rock (yeah... I'm old!!) I have heard them referred to as Zeppelin, Led Zep, Led Zeppelin and if you REALLY want to show off your purist roots, New Yardbirds. With so many other things to talk about, your "Zeppelin" comment did come across as a reach and if you intended it to be funny (your sense of humor comment) that did not come across in the post. Not being snarky, just sharing my observation.

Okay, maybe not everyone gets my sense of humor. But, the entire absurdity of comparing playlists as part of a political campaign should be obvious. When Ryan made his crack comparing his playlist to Obama's, I don't think he was all that serious either. I was using levity in response to levity. But, maybe you are right and Ryan's playlist ends at "L".

10:36 here, cross posting with your response. I think we can agree that some of us missed the humor of your post. I find so much of politics to be comical, that I didn't spot the obvious attempt at actual comedy. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Ryan may be Gen X, but his playlist is late-Boomer. His inarticulate speech is the result of a Miami University degree marinated in a few years in Washington. What a tool. And I fear we will be seeing a lot of him in the future, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:thank yo for being specific!

The 2.3% excise tax will be (more than) balanced by the additional 30 million patients who will now be covered! It will continue to be a profitable field.

the IRS will hire an additional 1,269 FTEs due to Obamacare. Here's where they will be:

Improve Taxpayer Service, 150
Increase Coverage to Address Tax Law Changes and Other Compliance Issues, 363
Ensure Accurate Delivery of Tax Credits, 504
Administer New Statutory Reporting Requirements, 187
Implement Individual Coverage Requirement and Employer Responsibility Payments, 65

I could not find anything about your $20 lunches. Not saying it isn't there. i just didn't find it. I guess that would fall under the Administer New Statutory Reporting Requirements category?

So, not a lot of new IRS employees, but notice the majority will be hired to hand out tax CREDITS?

And let's try to remember that federal jobs ARE ACTUAL JOBS! I don't understand why people whine more about paying our federal employees then they do about paying for two decade-long wars.

Nice spin on tax increases and forced transfer of money from private sector to government job hires. spare me the paying for war bs, that got old during hope and no change. You don't even hear that that from obama anymore

You can call it a spin, but am I wrong? Not sure if you are the PP I responded to or not. Either way, do you really think that the field of medical device sales will suffer just because of an excise tax even though the field will HUGELY benefit from an additional 30 million people having healthcare and potentially in the market for their devices?

If you are the PP, I am sorry that you will occasionally have to do a bit of additional paperwork, and that your gigantic increase in client base comes with a small tax increase. Some of us would like to point out that your sad story does not exactly present a strong argument for denying healthcare to millions of people. How very cold and heartless of you, by the way.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you have a terrific writing style. I ALWAYS read your posts when I see them because they are consistently 1) entertaining 2) well crafted and 3) generally spot-on. I have often LOL after reading your comments. But as someone who listened to Led Zeppelin when they were current rock, not classic rock (yeah... I'm old!!) I have heard them referred to as Zeppelin, Led Zep, Led Zeppelin and if you REALLY want to show off your purist roots, New Yardbirds. With so many other things to talk about, your "Zeppelin" comment did come across as a reach and if you intended it to be funny (your sense of humor comment) that did not come across in the post. Not being snarky, just sharing my observation.

Okay, maybe not everyone gets my sense of humor. But, the entire absurdity of comparing playlists as part of a political campaign should be obvious. When Ryan made his crack comparing his playlist to Obama's, I don't think he was all that serious either. I was using levity in response to levity. But, maybe you are right and Ryan's playlist ends at "L".

Got it... Just missed the humor. It kinda came out of left field on the heels of the "want an abortion" and "fucking uterus" posters. Just a case of subtle humor getting lost in the midst of dueling idiocy.

[Anonymous]

I don't think women objecting to draconian healthcare and social policies aimed us are idiots. We may get heated about it, particularly when confronted with juvenile retorts like the one I responded to, but there is nothing trivial about our concerns or our objections. I also do not think there is anything trivial about pointing out a political candidate's outright lies or obfuscations of his own record.

What I find ridiculous is your back and forth tit for tat on what constitutes humor or "appropriate" responses in your eyes, as if any of the rest of us care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think women objecting to draconian healthcare and social policies aimed us are idiots. We may get heated about it, particularly when confronted with juvenile retorts like the one I responded to, but there is nothing trivial about our concerns or our objections. I also do not think there is anything trivial about pointing out a political candidate's outright lies or obfuscations of his own record.

What I find ridiculous is your back and forth tit for tat on what constitutes humor or "appropriate" responses in your eyes, as if any of the rest of us care.

Who are you talking to? You know that there several conversations going on, right? And you need to understand that when we see the vein popping out on your neck as you type, you've lost credibility, no matter what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think women objecting to draconian healthcare and social policies aimed us are idiots. We may get heated about it, particularly when confronted with juvenile retorts like the one I responded to, but there is nothing trivial about our concerns or our objections. I also do not think there is anything trivial about pointing out a political candidate's outright lies or obfuscations of his own record.

What I find ridiculous is your back and forth tit for tat on what constitutes humor or "appropriate" responses in your eyes, as if any of the rest of us care.

Who are you talking to? You know that there several conversations going on, right? And you need to understand that when we see the vein popping out on your neck as you type, you've lost credibility, no matter what you're saying.

Clearly I was responding to the previous post. And being guilty of that which you accuse others is not credible either.

Please, if you are so smart and credible, please demonstrate points backing up Ryan's attacks. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:thank yo for being specific!

The 2.3% excise tax will be (more than) balanced by the additional 30 million patients who will now be covered! It will continue to be a profitable field.

the IRS will hire an additional 1,269 FTEs due to Obamacare. Here's where they will be:

Improve Taxpayer Service, 150
Increase Coverage to Address Tax Law Changes and Other Compliance Issues, 363
Ensure Accurate Delivery of Tax Credits, 504
Administer New Statutory Reporting Requirements, 187
Implement Individual Coverage Requirement and Employer Responsibility Payments, 65

I could not find anything about your $20 lunches. Not saying it isn't there. i just didn't find it. I guess that would fall under the Administer New Statutory Reporting Requirements category?

So, not a lot of new IRS employees, but notice the majority will be hired to hand out tax CREDITS?

And let's try to remember that federal jobs ARE ACTUAL JOBS! I don't understand why people whine more about paying our federal employees then they do about paying for two decade-long wars.

Nice spin on tax increases and forced transfer of money from private sector to government job hires. spare me the paying for war bs, that got old during hope and no change. You don't even hear that that from obama anymore

You know what forced transfer I don't like? Dumbasses who don't buy insurance when tru could afford it, then get treated for free when something bad happens. And it jacks up my premiums and my taxes. Where are you cutthroat conservatives when it comes to these freeloaders? Oh I know, a town called hyprocrisyville.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree with the freeloader issue.

I think that instead of taxing those who can afford it but choose not to get insurance under the ACA, a better plan would be to make people pay in advance for even emergency treatment if they don't have insurance. A lien on their house and car will suffice. That way noone is forced to get insurance, and I'm not forced to pay for those idiots.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Okay, maybe not everyone gets my sense of humor. But, the entire absurdity of comparing playlists as part of a political campaign should be obvious. When Ryan made his crack comparing his playlist to Obama's, I don't think he was all that serious either. I was using levity in response to levity. But, maybe you are right and Ryan's playlist ends at "L".

Jeff, as one whose attempts at humor are also sometimes missed, I think we should both sympathize with Ryan, who was not "comparing his playlist to Obama's", but to Romney's. It was a joke. And if it was not a great one, then maybe it was an ironic jab at Romney's stilted sense of humor (which we should perhaps blame Ann for, since it makes her laugh).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes yes we know how you feel, "they are lying, Obama is truthful"

Do you consider the massive government spending that would lead to low unemployment a lie?

You should ask your friend Paul Ryan, he did not have a problem voting for government spending from 2004-2008. In 2009, he sent President Obama a letter thanking him for sending stimulus money to his district.