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?

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".

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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".

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".