To Amnesty 5 Million

President Obama Delivers Remarks On Executive Action Immigration ReformIgnoring the brutal, historic slap-down angry American voters gave his party this month, President Obama unveiled plans for a unilaterally imposed amnesty that will shield an estimated 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.

Whether Republicans, now in possession of a thunderous mandate to fight Obama tooth and nail, will fight this despotic usurpation of the lawmaking powers of Congress remains to be seen.

Obama doesn’t care. He is pressing on, hoping to fill America with millions of new Democrat voters. And he’s going to kill American jobs in the process.

“We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules,” said the president. The address from the White House came yesterday, which just so happened to be Revolution Day (also known as Civil War Day) in Mexico.

“We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded,” the president continued. Yet Obama went on to propose just such a reward in the form of a special “deal” for unlawful immigrants:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

Strangely, Obama, who routinely flouts the Constitution, still acknowledges some limits to his power. The deal, he said, does not apply to recently arrived illegal aliens or illegals who have yet to sneak into the country.

“It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive,” Obama said. “Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

Whether the benefits illegal aliens receive are as generous as benefits that citizens receive is beside the point. Illegal aliens are already eligible for extensive benefits from the government and Obama is a big believer in getting poor people addicted to welfare. No serious person believes illegals won’t have access to social programs.

In the address Obama played semantic games. What he’s doing is not an amnesty, he said:

Amnesty is the immigration system we have today. Millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That’s the real amnesty, leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair.

The former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer has it wrong. A failure to enforce a law isn’t tantamount to amnesty. Amnesty is an official governmental act of forgiveness that excuses a violation of the law. Being in a state of legal limbo in which law enforcement hasn’t yet called your number isn’t the same as amnesty.

Nor is the immigration system broken, at least not in the way Obama means.

When progressives say the system is broken, they mean it is functioning in a less than optimal manner, failing to capture every single prospective illegal alien available to wade across the Rio Grande or walk across the nation’s largely undefended border with Mexico. To them, immigration policy is a taxpayer-subsidized get-out-the-vote scheme for Democrats and the best reform they could imagine would be to abolish America’s borders altogether. Obama’s new amnesty plan is a step in this direction.

It is also a profoundly cynical move that rewards lawbreaking and begets future immigration amnesties. It will spell electoral death for the Republican Party in coming years because Latinos, who are believed to comprise the bulk of the illegals, have traditionally shown a strong preference for the Democratic Party and its left-of-center public policies. The amnesty for 5 million illegals is likely just the beginning. The government recently issued a procurement order seeking a contractor to make as many as 34 million immigration documents over the coming five years.

During his address, Obama quoted the Book of Exodus, saying:

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.

But the immigrants in question are not the legal immigrants of the past who followed the rules when they came to this country. They are invaders who broke the law and who continue to break the law by being here. America is not, nor has it ever been, a nation of illegal immigrants.

To qualify for relief from deportation, individuals will have to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, and pay a processing fee, according to a White House handout. Applications can’t be filed until early next year.

Parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents as of the date of the announcement are eligible, provided that they are not “enforcement priorities” and have been present in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010. Also eligible are individuals who arrived in this country before Jan. 1, 2010 and before turning 16 years old, regardless of how old they are now. Processing times for certain categories of green card applicants will be accelerated. Recent arrivals who entered the country after Jan. 1 of this year will not be eligible to apply.

Obama lapdogs were ecstatic about the planned amnesty.

Echoing Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) who absurdly compared Obama’s executive order to the Emancipation Proclamation, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked, “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?”

Except that the Emancipation Proclamation freed categories of slaves, innocent people victimized by an abhorrent institution, not illegal aliens who took it upon themselves to invade the country and abuse the goodwill of Americans. The only thing the two executive orders have in common is that a president signed them.

Republicans are deeply split on the amnesty issue so anyone expecting Republican lawmakers to give Obama a well-deserved rhetorical mauling two weeks after the GOP crushed Democrats in midterm elections will be disappointed in coming days. That’s not what the emasculated party of Lincoln does because it is terrified of being called racist for opposing the nation’s first (half) black president.

Despite running a virtually content-free campaign, on Nov. 4 the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, winning at least 53 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 244 out of 435 seats. In the new year Republicans will control at least 31 state governors’ mansions and at least 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber). In at least 23 states Republicans will control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. Democrats can make the same claim about only 7 states.

The election was arguably, depending on the psephological metrics used, the worst showing for the Democratic Party in its history.

Despite the newly enfeebled status of the Democrats, the House GOP’s response was predictably weak. Instead of righteously inveighing against the grave threat that Obama’s actions pose to the republic, on Twitter the official House Republican feed meekly exhorted the president to cooperate with them.

“We need a real fix, not a quick fix. Let’s fix our broken immigration system together,” read one GOP tweet. Another said, “Mr. President, stop acting alone. Let’s work together.” Maybe the GOP’s communications professionals would like to roast some s’mores and sing Kumbaya with the president.

And Obama must be quaking in his jackboots. Even after six years of getting beaten to a pulp, constantly sucker-punched by the nation’s Alinskyite president, congressional Republicans still aren’t anywhere close to grasping what he really is. They continue to treat Obama as if he’s a legitimate, sincere president who actually wants to do what’s best for America. They foolishly believe Obama cares about his falling public approval numbers and his presidential legacy. They refuse to acknowledge that he is a radical revolutionary figure hellbent on destroying, or in his own words, fundamentally transforming, the U.S. They actually seem to think Obama is interested in negotiating with them to find policy solutions that benefit the country. Many elected GOPers appear not to have an inkling that embracing amnesty is the same as signing a death warrant for the Republican Party.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who supports amnesty in principle but is under intense pressure from conservative lawmakers, is trying to put down a rebellion in his own House GOP conference. Although Obama has previously protested that he is not a king or an emperor, “he’s sure acting like one,” Boehner, who may face a challenge to his speakership in January, said yesterday.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was characteristically vague.

“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” he said.

Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told USA Today earlier this week that Obama’s amnesty could spark civil unrest. “The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation.”

“You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy … You could see violence,” Coburn said. Obama will be behaving like “an autocratic leader that’s going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” he said. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) appears to have taken the wrong lesson from the electoral bloodbath this month that set Democrats back 150 years. Although voters delivered the message that they want Obama stopped, Rogers interprets the election as a mandate for surrender.

“I believe a major consequence of this election is a loud and clear mandate from the American people for Washington to stop the gridlock, work together across ideological lines and start producing real accomplishments on their behalf,” Rogers wrote in an op-ed.

Rogers wants Congress to pass a long-term funding bill called an omnibus appropriations bill before the government’s authority to spend money expires on Dec. 11. It would keep the government operating for the rest of the federal fiscal year which runs to Sept. 30, 2015.

There will be “an extraordinary amount of work to do when the new Congress convenes in January … but there simply won’t be the political bandwidth available to address these pressing issues if Congress is bogged down in old battles and protracted to-do lists.”

Some Republicans have proposed defunding the parts of the government that would process amnesty-related paperwork.

Separately, Rogers has made the absurd suggestion that Congress approve a big, all-encompassing spending bill now and then rescind amnesty-relating funding next year. Rescissions happen but they’re relatively rare. Why bother giving Obama a green light to proceed with the amnesty now in the hope of slamming on the brakes in the new year?

The real problem with enacting an omnibus spending bill, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is that such a funding measure “would enable Obama to complete his lawless amnesty scheme.”

Rogers insists that the amnesty cannot be stopped through the appropriations process.

It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill,” House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said yesterday, explaining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by user fees.

It is a facile, easily disproved argument. USCIS, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is part of the federal government. It was created by Congress and Congress can do anything it wants to it. It can give it money, take money away from it, give it a spanking, or order it to stand on one leg and bark like a dog.

In a development overshadowed by the unveiling of the amnesty, DHS announced yesterday that it will grant “temporary protected status” to up to 8,000 people from the Ebola-afflicted African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. These visitors may apply for work permits for 18 months. Unlike ordinary recipients of temporary protected status, these Ebola refugees will not be allowed to travel to their home countries and then return to the U.S., in order to prevent the spread of Ebola.

Or so the story goes. If Obama can find a way to let them stay in the U.S., he’ll do it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    People like me are looking at the results and very skeptical about the response and the results. I’ll accept just about any given even halfway plausible answer, but the answers so far don’t add up in terms of explaining the results.

    And then you have the political dimensions in terms of how it plays out and effects the presidential election.

    Anyone who suggests that these scandals have been dealt such that critics should be satisfied is dishonest or dumb.

    • Americana

      Benghazi has been fully explained, you just don’t believe in the explanations. Point by point, you continue to take issue w/these points of weakness that produced the Benghazi outcome. Sadly, the math does add up for everything that happened in Benghazi.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I question the results. I don’t have answers that satisfy me. I understand that it’s possible those answers will never be available.

        Anyone who thinks this report is satisfactory was not questioning the results in the first place. This report is nothing. It fulfilled an obligation. That’s it.

        Did you learn anything from the report?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Sadly, the math does add up for everything that happened in Benghazi.”

        It takes something like 8 hours to prepare a flight of F16s to take off on a mission to buzz Benghazi from Aviano. Sure. That adds up to bullshit. And if it’s true, the scandal lies at Aviano.

        So we don’t need Aviano (ready to scramble jets) any longer because we have the Sixth Fleet. On no? They what? Busy too? Weird stuff.

        Oh, I get it. We have a massive drone fleet. So we have Predators and Reapers and some of those things have awesome cameras and others have missiles so we don’t need the fleet or Aviano ready to scramble jets. We send in the drones. Armed I assume. Amiright?

        But it “all adds up” because permanent SNAFU is OK if you like the guy in the White House.

        So we spend all of this money to be prepared for…what exactly? Excuse making? i don’t think so. I hope NONE of you people that accept this bullshit are ever in any important leadership positions. I’m tired of the bullshit from our government and it has to be tightened up. I’m not delusional. I do have standards. And if you take a position of leadership and map out a highly controversial strategy, you’d better have answers and show some transparency and cooperation with investigators when events start to make it look like your entire approach is phucked up. Did we even get that? No. We get a guy that just lies and lies. On to the next lie. Cover for the IRS, do some race baiting, golf, the bullshit never ends.

        And then we get idiots showing up repeating TPM. I could really do without all of the anti-American jerkoffs.

        • Americana

          I agree, I’m tired of the BS as well. And I sure am tired of the pro-American jerkoffs who think that lies are the better underpinnings to carry the day and sell stories behind the Middle East’s events to the American people. But, I’m tired of the BS coming from ALL directions — whether inside the Beltway or all over the internet. It’s tiresome trying to identify the BS from folks like Drakken who muddy the waters and who are accorded credibility they do not deserve.

          Don’t you remember our (alleged) military contractor Drakken who claimed he’d heard the “Stand Down” order issued in Benghazi but his story fell apart under questioning because he didn’t hear the specifics he’d claimed? Another instance where Drakken’s lies also fell apart was when he claimed the U.S. failed to resupply Israel w/critical arms from the U.S. arms depot that’s maintained in Israel by the U.S. In this instance, he also claimed personal knowledge of that failure to resupply Israel when the reality was rather that the U.S. changed the process of Israel procuring arms from that depot. Initially Drakken claimed personal knowledge of the resupply situation as if he knew the men manning the arms depot or knew people up the supply chain who knew what was what. If he actually had such sources, he would have received the CORRECT INFORMATION about the REVISED PROCUREMENT POLICY of the approval/release process for American arms from that Israel-based U.S. arms depot. Surely, honesty is the best policy. Especlally if there’s a chance your story can be easily disproven which does more harm than good to one’s cause.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not relying on any anonymous sources for anything. I’m sorry your frustrated. Finding out that some people are wrong or passing along unverified rumors doesn’t put away all of the possibilities that we don’t yet have enough facts.

            I’m skeptical and remain skeptical. And I’ve caught this president lying enough to know not to trust his administration. I’m not inventing things. I’m saying I don’t believe I have the full story.

            At the very least this is the new business as usual and in that case we’re still screwed. He took an oath and he’s not keeping it except by some irrational standard that requires absolute faith in the idea that shrinking America’s standing in the world even doing things that are clearly bad for America and for Americans is somehow part of some “social justice” calculation that is “good for America.”

            It’s mendacious and severely delusional. And people need to at least tell the truth. Like Gruber. Tell us why it’s important to lie so much. Tell us why it’s important and good for America to lie about IRS scandals. Come out to the rostrum and explain all of these controversial good is bad and bad is good calculations. I’d love to hear more from the Grubers. I mean I already have conversations with those kinds of idiots but I want them on video in the public domain. I want to hear more PUBLICLY from the big brains that want to shrink and decimate America for the “good” of America.

          • Americana

            Who said you were relying on anonymous facts? As far as I’m concerned, you’re writing as if you’re oblivious to THE FACTS. The situation in Benghazi is a replay of any and every instance where a group of people in a war zone weren’t able to be rescued in time. That’s a pretty straightforward event when it comes right down to it.

            Now, suddenly, because there’s just a little too much factual pressure on you about Benghazi, you’re going to turn away from the facts of Benghazi and suddenly go off on a multiple tangential riff about Pres. Obama “degrading America’s standing in the world” by lumping together every single scandal in the Obama administration, whether real or imagined or manufactured? On what basis do you claim that those three categories can be compiled as one? The one rumour category I find most “mendacious and severely delusional” is that where you claim the POTUS is a Muslim solely because of spending time in Indonesia as a child and that Islam continues to play a significant role in Pres. Obama’s life and his Presidency. Islam is playing a central role in his Presidency but it’s not the role many here are always attempting to spin it into.

            Why are the Islam rumors such an incredibly eccentric blend of fact and fiction? Because the facts are Mr. Obama is choosing to fight ISIL and al Qaeda. Those facts outweigh what you’re shoveling into the contrarian bucket on the scales. If Pres. Obama intended to aid and abet Muslim extremists, there would have been no expansion and completion of the PRISM surveillance system, there would be no expansion of the drone attacks, there would be no American advisors on the ground in Iraq, and on and on and on… As for what’s happening to America, we’ve known for years that China may overtake the scale of the U.S. economy and bump the U.S. dollar off the charts as the world’s reserve currency. That’s something that American multinational corporations could choose to help head off if they chose to remain manufacturing here in the U.S. Are they doing so? Nope, they’re heading to China and other third-world locations. If you’re going to moan about the state of America, make sure you include all the high points otherwise you appear ????.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Who said you were relying on anonymous facts? As far as I’m concerned, you’re writing as if you’re oblivious to THE FACTS. ”

            See, I don’t get people like you. How is saying that there are remaining unknowns evidence that the speaker is oblivious regarding the known facts? Explain that to me.

            “The situation in Benghazi is a replay of any and every instance where a group of people in a war zone weren’t able to be rescued in time. That’s a pretty straightforward event when it comes right down to it.”

            That sounds like really awesome postop feedback. You’re a real pro. Shirt happens. No biggie.

            “Now, suddenly, because there’s just a little too much factual pressure on you about Benghazi, you’re going to turn away from the facts of Benghazi and suddenly go off on a multiple tangential riff about Pres. Obama “degrading America’s standing in the world” by lumping together every single scandal in the Obama administration, whether real or imagined or manufactured? On what basis do you claim that those three categories can be compiled as one?”

            And I’m oblivious? Factual pressure? No. They (all parties concerned) used (and responded to) leaks to fine tune their narratives. We have an official report that commits them to some of those narratives. That’s barely newsworthy. If you’re impressed, I don’t care. A report is evidence of positions taken. It’s something, but not a big deal. When just about everything in the report is simply a rehash of positions already leaked…WTF are you getting excited about? And that is my main thrust. This report is just a kind of phase in the poker game where players had to show their cards – for a given hand. That’s it. Politically it’s a big deal because it means the RP is going to shift its focus. If all you care about is Benghazi, then it’s disappointing. I don’t care about Benghazi the way you idiots presume. If you want to engage in extended nuanced conversations at least pay attention to what each individual is saying. Otherwise you too will come across like a partisan drone.

            The big picture has ALWAYS been about questioning this administration. Always. Of course bad things happen. How absurd for you or anyone else to constantly pretend that your opponents are children. As if conservatives are upset because blood was spilled on the “poor Negro’s” watch. If you can’t understand your opponents better than that, then you too are a waste of time.

            Some people got very upset when talking about rehashed so-called HillaryCare. For me it was something I don’t appreciate but I didn’t fear it. I knew it would be a time for give and take of ideas and people would learn more about economics, health care issues, importance of incentives and so forth. I’m never one to move to quash productive conversations. I look forward to them. Usually.

            In late 2008 when 0′Bama won the election, I was disappointed because I thought McCain had more experience and generally speaking I don’t like the way the DP handles foreign policy. I reasoned that if 0′Bama was going to be a good president, maybe the ideal thing would be to have him lose in 2008 and win in 2012 or 2016 depending on McCain. I actually thought McCain was mediocre and that having him lose after one term would send a message to the RP. And then we’d get all the benefits of the new guy after he gained just a little more experience. And things did seem to happen just a little too easily for the guy. It’s not usually good for anyone when you spend your life walking on rose petals and worse when you’re told that “the system” is holding you back. I reasoned though that maybe given his privileged background that he could be a uniter by testifying that there are many powerful black people that have no difficulties at all succeeding.

            I also reasoned that a young guy would tend to surround himself with a more experienced team. I expected business as usual, more or less, and the plus factor of having “African Americans” see that truly anyone can succeed here. There really is no glass ceiling for anyone in America. It’s a crisis in confidence most of the time. That’s a position I’ve pushed for my entire adult life. I would have preferred someone in the Republican Party, or an independent because I do not see any DP president that has EVER done a really good job in FP. The other thing is that I was very concerned about the “hanging chad” backlash and apparent desire for DP loyalists to get revenge. What I hoped (wrongly) was that having a DP president would allow the pro-American elements of the DP to move to the front again.

            So I had reasons for optimism even though I understood why people were freaking out about this “cosmopolitan” president. I believe I was in the center where I thought there would be pros and cons and like any other president we’d have Congress balance things out and the republic would carry on and shake off whatever might come up.

            The first thing that got me concerned was pushing the ACA so hard. But I thought that it was just something that the DP wants badly because maybe they feel it’s been delayed long enough. They’re not introducing anything new (in their minds) so they’re really pushing it hard to get ‘er done. As long as they understand that they’ve got to defer other priorities. But then what? Reducing carbon and all fossil fuels is also issue number one? You want to ram down the biggest market intervention in world history and at the same time impose even more restrictions on domestic energy? This worried me. But no big deal because this is politics. Things will calm down after the parties hash it out.

            Then one day I was doing something in California and I had PBS on in the background. I heard something about Jimmy Carter saying that criticism of this president is rooted in racism? What the holy F?

            I looked in to it. I reviewed the actual video. What is he talking about? Are there racists picketing the White House? This was the moment drove me to start paying a lot more attention to the larger public discourse. I wanted to know more about what was going on.

            After about a year later, I started to become convinced that the DP attacks against Bush reflected a lot more than anger-driven politics about losing a controversial election in 2000. I started to see that a lot of these “anti-American” accusations had merit. Yet I still didn’t jump to any conclusions. I did even more research on communist infiltration, still knowing that a lot of the narratives were simply unverified conspiracy theories and yet a lot of them are proven.

            To go further I would have to explain a lot more about my background and that just isn’t feasible. But I’ll just say that none of these issues were new to me. I just took a stronger interest in seeing if maybe there were some underlying trends that might be as dangerous as conservatives claim. And I did find some.

            And that’s why I’m here. I don’t apologize for defending our constitution and our values. You can disagree. But if you’re selling deception, knowingly or not, I’ll confront you or anyone else about it. That’s just how it is.

          • Americana

            I don’t see Communist infiltration being behind the shift in policy positions in the Democratic party. Instead, I see national economic shifts in the world being responsible for changes in the Democratic party’s aims. It was very clear that as many American companies reduced their wages and benefits under economic pressure from within and from abroad, health insurance coverage was vanishing from the expected benefits American workers could rely on receiving except at the largest American companies. Wanting to solve an impending explosion of uninsured as well as solve the issue of Americans who’d been thrown out of the insurance pool because they’d exhausted their benefits or to assist those American workers who lost health insurance when they became unemployed is a pretty straightforward EITHER/OR situation. Either you concede the country is facing a health insurance crisis or you pretend it isn’t. But anyone who’s on the receiving end of the crisis knows the crisis is expanding. SOLVE IT or DON’T SOLVE IT, but don’t pretend that the situation as is is tenable. As for the ACA being illegal or being an abject failure, as far as I can tell, its less desirable attributes stem from the fact we were preserving the insurance business model. It’s certainly possible to design something that is less reflective of the American insurance model.

            As for “selling deception” or tolerating deception, fact and fiction are not synonymous or interchangeable. I’m sensitive enough to factual presentation I’ve twice caught out someone like Drakken in two MAJOR LIES. No one else on FPM paid any attention to the fact Drakken’s lies were disproven and you should find that lack of acknowledgment very strange. Ultimately, Drakken’s personal testimony to events in the Middle East should be discredited (from here on out) because of those two major lies. The fact his lies were blown out of the water may be why he’s disappeared from FPM as a poster who’s relaying his (self-referenced) **definitive, personal testimony** about events in the Middle East. But he was relied upon as someone in the know on this web site for dog knows how long no matter how ludicrously he crafted his lies all because he constantly threw out the sound bytes du jour. Not much fact to his fictions… but (____) is still singing his praises. Now that’s strange, you gotta admit it.

            Don’t apologize for defending our Constitution and our societal values. But don’t allow those to be co-opted by those selling fiction when they should be capable of selling fact. If someone can strip your “facts” of their facts and leave you holding up a postcard w/fictitious sound bytes on it, you’ve got to investigate more, do more research.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t see Communist infiltration being behind the shift in policy positions in the Democratic party. Instead, I see national economic shifts in the world being responsible for changes in the Democratic party’s aims.”

            Really? How is that? Do you understand why we’ve lost so many manufacturing jobs? Not TPM. Do you actually understand? Talking points always focus on what in theory could have been done rather than accepting blame where it’s due. Do you know the issues that get swept under the rug or just the left’s talking points?

            “It was very clear that as many American companies reduced their wages and benefits under economic pressure from within and from abroad, health insurance coverage was vanishing from the expected benefits American workers could rely on receiving except at the largest American companies. Wanting to solve an impending explosion of uninsured as well as solve the issue of Americans who’d been thrown out of the insurance pool because they’d exhausted their benefits or to assist those American workers who lost health insurance when they became unemployed is a pretty straightforward EITHER/OR situation. Either you concede the country is facing a health insurance crisis or you pretend it isn’t.”

            Due you understand that when looking at a macroenonomy you can shift costs around and pretend you’ve contained them while in reality driving the costs higher? And if you’re stubborn and delusional what you do is apply controversial stimulus theories like Mr. Gruber does so that you can claim you’ve “solved” the ___ problem.

            Do you understand that your positions are not supported by proofs but only by theories?

            And how do you determine what a national crisis is other than your emotional reactions to the rhetoric? Health care crisis? There are issues that could be handled better. The DP makes ALL of them WORSE. They cause virtually all of the crises. They take problems that might be solved, or might not be, pool them together and announced “solved” while the problems fester like a hidden abscess caused by a bacteria infection. They (metaphorically) put bandaids on infections and announce “problem solved” and keep adding layers to the bandages until the limb falls off and then scream “Oh my gosh, look at what the capitalists did to our country!”

            Have you ever read this:

            http://bastiat.Org/en/twisatwins.html

            You leftists think you understand an issue by taking a comprehensive look at the skin. Anyone that disagrees with you is “oblivious.” Because you’re oh so much smarter. Those weird conservatives talking about some alleged intestinal infection! What’s that? LOL! Crazy bigots!

          • Americana

            I’ve never heard any Democrat declare “Problem solved” if there isn’t some indication the problem is solved on a relatively long-term basis. I don’t believe there ARE ANY PERMANENT FIXES for society, whether they be fixed taxes or fixed mortgage rates or anything else. Society is fluid and the society’s problems remain fluid and raise up at inopportune times w/new heads on them. I don’t differentiate between the points taken and implemented from conservatives and liberals nor between what points are taken from Marxists and capitalists. If someone comes up w/what seems a workable solution, they’re welcome to give the city/state/country a sales pitch for their plan and we’ll see if there is unanimity in favor of implementing it. We’ll then watch like hawks to see if the plan continues to perform as hoped. Capitalists are no better at succeeding in avoiding economic travails than anyone else or do you simply refuse to look at how cyclical the depressions are in U.S. economic history?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Search:

            ACA is working

          • Americana

            It is working insofar as people who were barred from getting health insurance can now purchase health insurance. That is a step forward in at least one significant direction. That’s especially true if you were one of the newly uninsured who’d exhausted their insurance benefits who’d been left to die by the insurance industry. Is the way the insurance industry handled the financial demands by shifting the costs to other insured legitimate? No.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t differentiate between the points taken and implemented from conservatives and liberals nor between what points are taken from Marxists and capitalists”

            Because both confuse you.

            “If someone comes up w/what seems a workable solution, they’re welcome to give the city/state/country a sales pitch for their plan and we’ll see if there is unanimity in favor of implementing it. We’ll then watch like hawks to see if the plan continues to perform as hoped.”

            That’s worked out great with the ACA.

            “Capitalists are no better at succeeding in avoiding economic travails than anyone else or do you simply refuse to look at how cyclical the depressions are in U.S. economic history?”

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. Marxists have alternative ways of managing capital. They don’t use something entirely different. The difference between “capitalists” and Marxist is sovereignty. That’s it. Get it?

            So-called capitalists care about property rights. Because historically that (private sector) is where most development comes from. And even if the government is a client, we still get better results when maximum liberty is respected and companies are allowed to bid.

            Basically Marxists like Gruber literally think that all humans are too stupid and too selfish to do the right think for society at large. Only the Übermensch class can come up with viable plans. And the stupid people need to be “nudged” because of their desire to oppress others and even the oppressed are unmotivated due to “false consciousness.” Having Grubers behind the scene is 100% what you would expect from Marxists in a democracy. It is 100% in alignment with what I not just predicted but explained to people on this very site.

            So you need to first straighten out your understanding that when you criticize “capitalists” without qualifying your remarks, you’re supporting Gruber. Because anyone with freedom (allegedly) that is also successful is also building illicit power. Success is ipso facto oppressive to the Marxist.

            You say you disagree. But you can’t define a threshold where you disagree with Gruber. You’re confused. They’ve fooled you. You are a neo-Marxist dupe. You have abstract understandings for ideas that can be disproved.

            Now with regard to giving people too much freedom (and that is truly, no joke, the root of the problem with “capitalism” from the Marxist POV) and how to deal with “losers” there are non-Marxist ways to solve those problems. The government doesn’t use them for the most part.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But anyone who’s on the receiving end of the crisis knows the crisis is expanding. SOLVE IT or DON’T SOLVE IT, but don’t pretend that the situation as is is tenable. As for the ACA being illegal or being an abject failure, as far as I can tell, its less desirable attributes stem from the fact we were preserving the insurance business model. It’s certainly possible to design something that is less reflective of the American insurance model.”

            Oh geez. You’re not the one to refer to others as oblivious. There is no problem with the “American model” and the part of it that you want to destroy would destroy medicine for the entire world. Not overnight, but within a single generation at most. We won’t let you. You don’t have that right.

            There are a few things from the ACA that are acceptable. We’re talking only about the part you used to deceive the public. It’s OK to have exchanges. It’s not OK to have mandates. And if you want to subsidize some people, do it honestly. When has fraud ever been a legitimate part of any kind of legal solution?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Don’t apologize for defending our Constitution and our societal values. But don’t allow those to be co-opted by those selling fiction when they should be capable of selling fact. If someone can strip your “facts” of their facts and leave you holding up a postcard w/fictitious sound bytes on it, you’ve got to investigate more, do more research.”

            Would you like to join me for about 6 months so I can prove everything I’ve said and no further need for you to follow any other clues? Of course not. I’m not responsible for taking you from A to Z. If you don’t want to deal with the most salient points being made, that’s on you. You take for granted certain things like criticism of “the American model” for “health care.” You don’t even realize that these crises are caused almost entirely by interventionism. We need regulations, but we don’t need Grubers and their magic social justice solutions. Mr. Gruber is not even close to the first. Not even the first generation. This is Jonathan Gruber the Fourth (generation) or something like that. And he has lots of cohorts.

            If you want to go around avoiding the evidence it’s easy to do. Just avoid looking under the surface of any issue and denounce others as “oblivious” when you refuse to dig in and actually look to see what’s under the skin. And by the way, that’s one of the big reasons medical advances started accelerating. We started looking under the skin to see where most of the action is.

          • Americana

            Medical advances started accelerating because technological advances enhance such advances geometrically across various interdisciplinary methodologies. As for your description of how the health care crisis was caused by “interventionism,” you’ll have to elaborate on your vision of what interventionism is. As for our national health care system it simply arose out of a societal need. Revisions to our health care system also arise out of societal need.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 23 minutes ago: “Medical advances started accelerating because technological advances enhance such advances geometrically across various interdisciplinary methodologies. ”
            You’re not paying attention. Overcoming taboos wrt slicing cadavers is what I was looking for. Ya have to look deeper than just the surface if you want to know why leeching is not that great for human health.
            And most of what you said was babble. Geometrically? OK, how about naming some of the watershed moments that led to exponential accelerations in development? You’ll be looking mostly at war history, microbiology (starting of course with the microscope) and quantum physics.
            And something is only “cross disciplinary” after we decide that certain disciplines are separate. So you’re not really explaining driving factors.
            Communications technologies have obviously helped. But again, my point is that we started looking more deeply at reality as we developed tools and desire to do that. We can’t take models on computers of organs until after we’ve studied the real thing very intensely. The computer tech and modeling, using synthetic illustrations is entirely dependent on the data used. Defective models can be worse than having no model at all.

          • Americana

            Most of what you wrote was babble. I simply followed your lead.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re right about what you said. Anyone with a little patience and desire can independently verify what I said. You certainly did NOT follow my lead.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for your description of how the health care crisis was caused by “interventionism,” you’ll have to elaborate on your vision of what interventionism is.”

            http://www.tutor2u.Cet/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-government-intervention-2.html

            Read that. If you get through it with enough comprehension I’ll find an article that goes more in to specific criticisms with examples of “unintended consequences.”

            One of the biggest problems that interventions fail to account for is how service providers will react.

            I never read her books but from what I can tell Ayn Rand was trying to illustrate some of those human reactions with her novels. I think the examples are exaggerated of course but for relevant parables you could do a lot worse.

            Central planners and market interventionists can some times predict reactions to commodity pricing interventions. Generic drugs are commodities. Patent drugs are not. Some services could be considered commodities but most important ones really are not.

            I could write forever on unintended consequences but I’d rather you find your own examples so that you can at least have some grasp of the concerns. And that’s even before we introduce the Marxist fraud elements.

          • Americana

            Unintended consequences are no more something that can’t be faced head on as part of the process of planning and implementation than intended consequences. The only “unintended consequences” of health care would likely be that suddenly the health insurance industry would try to figure out some new algorithms to reduce benefits. Health insurance is a BUSINESS, first and foremost. it is not your doctor and has no vested interest in getting you well. It’s business plan is to attach itself to your insurance like a REMORA and suck off some of the money directed at your health care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Unintended consequences are no more something that can’t be faced head on as part of the process of planning and implementation than intended consequences.”

            In theory yes, but that rarely happens. Competence matters a whole lot. For everyone. And the difference between the left’s approach and the right (at least in party platform) is that by allowing individuals to shine, we on the right expect to have more competence to draw from by avoiding cronyism (in theory) and group-think.

            Here’s the thing: Nobody can completely eliminate unintended consequences. That would make them foreseen and require levels of competence that don’t really exist. OTOH the goal isn’t perfection either. So some times you can make rough plans to respond to classes of problems that might come up. But making fundamental planning errors, or worse, putting in bullshit policies that simply look effective just to get a bill passed…on such a huge issue is tragic.

            Now you’ve go to look at moral hazard. Who stands to lose my choosing poorly? You don’t generally speaking want to empower people to make decisions that won’t be fully accountable for failures. When you empower people that you can hold fully accountable, and they know it, generally speaking that helps a lot.

            These things are very difficult to do as projects scale up. When you get to Federal government scale projects…holy smokes you’re introducing a lot of problems.

            Let me just change gears for a moment. In previous conversations I have been asked for alternatives. Even if I can’t change timing or other priorities, it still would have made sense to unbundle each component. Of course, the bundling was crucial for pulling of the deception. I don’t know if you have heard of various “bundling” scams but it happens all the time in the marketplace even for small transactions. It’s a very old trick for deceiving buyers. Doing it for a massive bill is really just a habit they have in Congress that must be challenged because it’s just too easy for something like this to happen again.

            Anyway, breaking up the components and then deploying them separately to check results would have been smarter. The way it’s been done so far has been all about the scam. There is no way they have even tried to be honest up till now. They’re just hoping the Gruber revelations (no it was done consciously!) will fade.

            “The only “unintended consequences” of health care would likely be that suddenly the health insurance industry would try to figure out some new algorithms to reduce benefits.”

            Again your naiveté shines through. Take me through a meeting where medical professionals look at government interventions (limits on how they can do business) and have them say, let’s deliver better value!. They already take an oath. Now the INTENDED consequence is that they do just that. And that the marketplace will adjust and create new winners through “survival of the fittest” that are better at delivering good value. Or meeting the new regulations. I would say that some times there are people that respond to pressure by simply taking it as a challenge and working harder to deliver more for less pay. That’s what you’re asking. The most common reaction is to say, how to we adjust our costs down in order to compensate for the lost revenue? And that means patients lose.

            So in theory you can lower costs on a given service type. Right? But will that service be the same as it was before the intervention? Most of the time no. But forget about that. Pretend that every provider is going to find a way to deliver the same quality and same result with less money. Say the government takes 20% off. Nothing changes but those providers live on less income. That’s the best possible outcome. Now the geniuses on the left say that even this result is a good thing because the greedy doctors will retire and the industry will attract more altruistic professionals. OMG this is so naive. But really what happens is as soon as incomes go down statistically for a given industry, enrollment goes down for students that would have elected to work in that industry. They choose something else.

            OK, no problem. I few less doctors. We’ll rehire the ones that were out of work before. We’ll loosen licensing standards. And well limit options for people that want to sue for malpractice. Now what happens to quality? Lower wages and government protection from lawsuits will tend to do what to quality offered on a statistical basis?

            See, these aren’t even really that hard to account for. But lying politicians won’t let you even think about these real world issues. And we know about these things because it has already happened when some groups moved in to HMO and similar models. Basically the doctors are now paid to game the system in order to make the politicians look good according to the statistics that they promised to deliver on.

            You know who loses? Individuals that work in or use medical products and services that are affected by these interventions. Basically they took all of the lessons we should have learned from HMOs and manipulated us with it. They lie. They use phony models that ignore what we know and focus only on what we wish would happen, they know it will probably break but once the bill is a law it’s easier to crank the budgets up or find a compromise.

            It’s not about doing the right thing. It’s about partisan politics and demagoguery. Most of the people involved in the decision-making process either don’t know or don’t care. Obviously the ones that know, guys like Ben Carson, will tell you about it.

            “Health insurance is a BUSINESS, first and foremost. it is not your doctor and has no vested interest in getting you well. It’s business plan is to attach itself to your insurance like a REMORA and suck off some of the money directed at your health care.”

            You really have no clue. The ACA makes the government the client and you the patient. Get it? They do NOT have the incentives that you assume they have. They must meet the government’s expectations, not yours. Unless there is a doctor or practice looking for more patients (and the good ones are not) they don’t really have any financial motive to please you any longer if you’re covered through the ACA. Most of the providers I am sure would rather see the ACA crash than compete for subscribers. That’s the other thing: You don’t even realize that doctors will stop taking ACA for payments unless it’s required by law. Basically the doctors are paid to partner with the government in the taxpayer scams. And I’d say most of them would simply rather not at all. Not that they don’t care about patients, but they already have plenty of people to care about without having the government threaten the viability of their business enterprise.

            It seems like you’ve done absolutely no real research in to this. The government is the leech here.

          • Americana

            It seems like you’ve done all the right wing wacko research. There you go, riffing on the dramatic story elements claiming that there’d have to be a “loosening of licensing standards” and that “doctors who’d been cashiered out of practice would be hired back to fill the doctor ranks again.” Why you cannot logically and (relatively) dispassionately discuss issues is part and parcel of outrageous thinking and language being part and parcel of the right wing playbook at the moment.

            Insurance provides NO REAL BENEFIT to the health care equation. The only thing that can be said about health insurance is that it’s a mandatory savings plan for health care when it’s needed. But those people sitting behind desks at insurance agencies have no value to your health outcome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It seems like you’ve done all the right wing wacko research. There you go, riffing on the dramatic story elements claiming that there’d have to be a “loosening of licensing standards” and that “doctors who’d been cashiered out of practice would be hired back to fill the doctor ranks again.” ”

            Idiot, all of these things have happened already on smaller scales from previous intervention. Just shut up.

            “Insurance provides NO REAL BENEFIT to the health care equation other than the money redistribution aspect’

            It has value to the participants. You don’t like it? Butt out!!! Take Big Bro Government with you!!!

            You’re apparently just another idiot savant.

          • Doc2Go

            Check this entire thread, for today’s additional posts.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Thanks Doc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Insurance provides NO REAL BENEFIT to the health care equation other than the money redistribution aspect…”

            Do you know what that smells like? Want to see a screenshot of my Geiger counter?

            https://www.marxists.Org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#4

            “Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him.”

            ———–

            http://www.futurecasts.Com/Marx,%20Capital%20(Das%20Kapital)%20%20Vol%201%20(I).htm

            4) Money can be hoarded, as a store of value. “The desire to hoard is in its very nature insatiable.”

            To Marx, again, scarcity has no real value. Security and financial independence are things of only “imaginary” value, since they cannot be measured in terms of an abstract labor standard based on the unskilled, undifferentiated human labor of the subsistence wage earner who, by definition, can never achieve security or financial independence.

            ———–

            http://www.dissentmagazine.Org/article/marx-is-dead-long-live-marxs-ideas

            I’m not saying you’re a true-believing Marxist. I’m saying your own words prove beyond question everything that I said about you as a dupe of neo-Marxism…in not worse.

            The remaining question is whether you can figure out why I’m right. There’s a huge chasm between diagnosing someone and helping them out of their own denial.

            Oh, and Marx would consider you a communist because you have adopted his ideas about capital and the “struggle” for “social justice.”

          • Americana

            Listen, fella, your first comparison is the cheapest shot you could possibly take. Instead of attempting to understand my point, which is that insurance workers don’t ADD ANYTHING to the health equation, you completely DERAIL THE CONVERSATION and CLAIM I’m referring to denigrating the TOP-TIER CAPITALISTS who are defrauding the LITTLE OLD WORKER. If I need you to falsify any documents, I’ll let you know.

            In the meantime, the sentence stands and what it says is that the insurance industry doesn’t ADD INTRINSIC VALUE to the health equation and the health outcome. The only thing that health insurance does is facilitate w/building up pools of money that can be distributed among all those needing health care. Unfortunately, that money that’s pooled also has an ENORMOUS AMOUNT skimmed off the top in order for the insurance industry to perform its function of collecting and allocating funds while NOT PROVIDING ANY HEALTH-RELATED BENEFIT to the equation. That’s a pretty simple capitalist analysis of what’s going on w/the three parts of health care: the patient, the health insurance agency and the medical community delivering the care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Instead of attempting to understand my point, which is that insurance workers don’t ADD ANYTHING to the health equation…”

            Yes they do. They mediate. And you want to add useless complexity to those relationships and siphon off of it. The thing you complain about is made WORSE by your “remedies.”

          • Americana

            There is no need to “mediate” or have “insurance mediators” unless you’re QUIBBLING OVER COSTS. Your health care choices should be between you and your health care professionals.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh jeez…

            The government is mediating.

            me·di·a·tion

            ˌmēdēˈāSH(ə)n/

            noun

            intervention in a dispute in order to resolve it; arbitration.

            The ACA is an intervention that inserts itself in between all of the parties involved. It’s ongoing permanent mediation. It’s just not the kind of mediation you call to mind. SO it must be wrong. And it’s not the kind of mediation where the little guy, the individual subscriber and taxpayer, has any power.

            mediation (n.) late 14c., from Medieval Latin mediationem (nominative mediatio) “a division in the middle,” noun of action from past participle stem of mediare (see mediator). Related: Mediational.

          • Americana

            The ACA is not “mediation” in the sense that “mediation” occurs daily in health care scenarios between patient, insurer and doctor. Let’s please try to refrain from being disingenuous and remain factual when talking about the ACA.

            We knew we had to fix the health care insurance system. There were millions of Americans who’d been thrown off the insurance rolls and who needed insurance. The need to reform health care is something the U.S. has known for decades but it has become an ever more pressing issue as cost containment has not been achieved. The ACA was crafted by the health insurance industry so obviously it’s not something the health insurance lobby fundamentally disagrees with.

            Who disagrees w/it? Well, those Americans whose premiums were elevated because the insurance industry is playing a shell game w/the algorithms it uses to maintain its profit margin and the money it returns to patients. The insurance industry is the source of the increased premium costs because they are attempting to maintain their profit margins.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The ACA is not “mediation” in the sense that “mediation” occurs daily in health care scenarios between patient, insurer and doctor. Let’s please try to refrain from being disingenuous and remain factual when talking about the ACA.”

            I was trying to help you understand conceptually what “interventions” can be. It is factual to state that the ACA inserts the government in between buyer and seller as well as various other entities. It’s an ongoing, dynamic intervention that inserts itself in the middle. It is a mediation. It adds useless layers that only add value if it somehow adds higher levels of competence and makes up for its own costs. It adds complexity with promises of efficiency that any halfway intelligent person should see will require something like magic or very high degrees of competence that somehow exceed the private market.

            “We knew we had to fix the health care insurance system.”

            This is not something you should take for granted. And even if I agree that improvements can be made, that doesn’t entitle you to say “we must fix it” as in creating an imperative for even more massive government interventions. Why you blindly assume more rather than less government involvement will deliver better value is beyond me. Well, it’s not beyond me but when I tell you where it comes from you freak out.

            Why did it never occur to you that too much interference was causing many of the problems? If you care that much, why don’t you dig in and really find out what the problems are? Why not volunteer at a medical clinic and assist some doctors for a few weeks and then sit in with a billing clerk. That won’t give you the whole story but it will help you understand a little better what some of the issues are.

            Do you not care enough to get involved so you can find out really what’s happening? Why don’t you care about human suffering? You’re the altruistic one because you make demands? Really?

            “The ACA was crafted by the health insurance industry so obviously it’s not something the health insurance lobby fundamentally disagrees with.”

            Let’s see. Who are the factions? Service providers? Check. Buyers? Check. That’s two. Insurance companies? Got it. Now you have the government. So that’s 4 contending factions. And because the government has costs to deal with, we now have taxpayer involvement because the law needs to be funded. Five factions. But there is overlap in the groups. Time for the nutshell game!

            Who can we screw here? We’ll say nobody, of course. But in reality, where does this magic value-add occur? You complain about “pools” and “layers” that are none of your business and all of your solutions multiply the complexity basically to create a Ponzi scheme that shifts money around, pretends to have “smart” cost controls (like “smart diplomacy” because I say I’m smarter than you) and no demand that the government actually prove it can deliver on its promises.

            And even your theories breakdown when examined coherently. You simply don’t trust anyone that tries to help you see the problems. And how would I know that you have no industry experience? Because everything you suggest here comes from ignorant memes.

            And by the way, as I have said maybe ten thousand times this year, governments that employs “socialism” or “social justice” in democracies can do it under any theory they want but it is always economic fascism unless they simply seize company or industry assets. They can’t do that outright. They can increase taxes and negotiate with companies to participate in the game. The “magic” value comes from shifting money around and stealthily increasing taxes. Therefore it’s very often true that government solutions demonize private enterprise, then they get in bed with some of them and screw the group they’re targeting with taxes.

            BUT BUT BUT…it’s for the greater good and eventually because bureaucrats are so much smarter than people, once the government has enough control over the ant farms (their constituents), greater efficiencies will lead to better value delivered to our nation. Therefore social justice demands that we take these steps.

            These kinds of approaches start by speaking about millions of deprived people and end up killing equal or greater numbers.

          • Doc2Go

            Absolutely. 100 thumbs up.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            If you’re rating your industry experience as superior to mine, that’s why you could write the following sentence and not even realize how foolish it is:

            (OFM) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There’s not a direct connection.

            But the fact that you can’t even understand it does provide some testimony to that effect.

          • Americana

            Of course, there’s a direct connection about your industry experience and your description of said industry.

            You wrote and have several times defended this sentence, confirming that you believe this to reflect the legal status of the American insurance industry, to wit, that “if insurance companies added no value, they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            The question is not, and has never been, whether it’s valuable to have health insurance. The question is why you’re pretending that health insurance WOULD EVER had its value questioned in a court of law given that this HAS BEEN AND IS the delivery method of choice for health care in this country. Health insurance has never, ever been taken before the law to insist that it be bought/used as a product until this Supreme Court case. Rather, it has always been seen as something that is desirable to have. The fact is that up until insurance companies were given a personal mandate under the ACA, health insurance was never bypassed voluntarily whether it was offered as an employment incentive or if someone could afford to purchase it.

            It’s not that health insurance provided no value but rather that health insurance was not available to all. And that, at any time, if you cost the insurance industry too much money, you could be thrown off their rolls the moment you were able to be legally rejected. If your “industry connection” is that you were an insurance mediator and you made those calls telling someone they couldn’t have this procedure or that procedure, then I’d say, yes, your personal experience is superior to mine in that regard because I haven’t been an insurance mediator. On the other hand, if you’re denying that such denials of service exist, there are far more people on my side of the fence who know those denials are made on a daily basis. I’m also fairly certain, based on what you’ve written, that you have nowhere near the medical connections I have. Because if you did have those connections, you’d realize how many doctors believe the ACA or something drastic along those lines was long overdue.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You wrote and have several times defended this sentence, confirming that you believe this to reflect the legal status of the American insurance industry, to wit, that “if insurance companies added no value, they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.””

            Legal status? I’m talking about theory. —> If <— the law requires something that adds no value…blame the law.

            What in the heck is wrong with your brain?

          • Americana

            What the heck is wrong w/your brain that you fail to recognize that the insurance industry involved right along w/our country and that the structure of the industry was allowed to formulate itself? It’s EXISTENCE and RATIONALE FOR BEING, as well as its ethical behavior, were never legally called into question on an industry scale until recently because the industry had begun to ethically fail its customers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What the heck is wrong w/your brain that you fail to recognize that the insurance industry involved right along w/our country and that the structure of the industry was allowed to formulate itself?”

            Whatever degree I agree with you is moot. The issue is whether interventions can improve results versus free markets.

          • Americana

            No, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether free markets can achieve reasonable industry policy shifts within reasonable periods of time. I don’t consider having to wait one or two generations for the insurance industry to change its policies is something that can be allowed to happen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The issue is whether free markets can achieve reasonable industry policy shifts within reasonable periods of time. ”

            WHO DECIDES WHAT IS REASONABLE? The person paying or you and other delusional communists?

          • Americana

            Who decides what’s reasonable for the time shifts and the policy shifts? The ones who actually understand the money stream involved in medical care and who understand what is needed and the needs that aren’t being met. I’ve got no issues w/companies that siphon off money from the medical community like Theranos since they EARN their place in the phlebotomy line, but the bloodsucking insurance industry doesn’t do ANYTHING to contribute to medical care other than serve as a conduit for the money, much of which they consider is theirs. Remember, we’ve had several prominent CEOs of health insurance companies that have gone down in a BIG WAY for misusing their company’s profits to enrich themselves. Luckily, this company (Theranos) may put a big dent into what health insurance companies can charge for blood tests because of what Theranos intends as their own business plan. Wouldn’t it be interesting if all sorts of companies like Theranos came along, one after the other, and actually served a purpose in the medical stream to the patient that couldn’t be interfered w/by the insurance industry? What then????

            http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/

            http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The ones who actually understand the money stream involved in medical care and who understand what is needed and the needs that aren’t being met.”

            I think Gruber understands how own “money stream” better than he understands mine. Certainly he CARES MORE about HIS OWN money stream than any other.

            You realize that you’re a big time statist arguing for state control over capital any time the state claims it can do something better…don’t you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve got no issues w/companies that siphon off money from the medical community like Theranos since they EARN their place in the phlebotomy line, but the bloodsucking insurance industry doesn’t do ANYTHING to contribute to medical care other than serve as a conduit for the money, much of which they consider is theirs. Remember, we’ve had several prominent CEOs of health insurance companies that have gone down in a BIG WAY for misusing their company’s profits to enrich themselves. Luckily, this company (Theranos) may put a big dent into what health insurance companies can charge for blood tests because of what Theranos intends as their own business plan. Wouldn’t it be interesting if all sorts of companies like Theranos came along, one after the other, and actually served a purpose in the medical stream to the patient that couldn’t be interfered w/by the insurance industry? What then????”

            This is a full blown communist rant. You’ve not learned anything from our conversations. The only result is that your mask fell off.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t consider having to wait one or two generations for the insurance industry to change its policies is something that can be allowed to happen.”

            Too bad. Maybe you should shift your attitude or move to NK where they have a more modern approach to egalitarianism.

          • Americana

            Glad you understood that we potentially COULD be waiting for two generations before the insurance industry saw fit to change anything about their methodology and that you didn’t choose to pretend they wouldn’t do that if they could have continued to stonewall.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s EXISTENCE and RATIONALE FOR BEING, as well as its ethical behavior, were never legally called into question on an industry scale until recently because the industry had begun to ethically fail its customers.”

            By communists and a few people who understood that consumers are dummies and they stopped believing in caveat emptor. And you know what? Historical evidence proves that the more you help the dummies, the dumber they get.

          • Americana

            There ya go again. It’s ALWAYS the Communists and the Fascists and every other group that you’ve been instructed to suspect of anti-American activities. ‘Caveat emptor’ might equally apply to demographics within the U.S.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The question is not, and has never been, whether it’s valuable to have health insurance.”

            Well that’s your problem because it is a perfectly valid question.

            “The question is why you’re pretending that health insurance WOULD EVER had its value questioned in a court of law given that this HAS BEEN AND IS the delivery method of choice for health care in this country.”

            You have so many false assumptions and you won’t cooperate with parsing them.

            So explain to me the framework for how a court of law would question the value of “insurance” in whatever bundle you imagine it will investigate. How do you suppose that would work? I recommend if you want to wade your way out of this ignorance that you take a few classes at a local community college. They should have something entry level dealing with “business law” or contract law. A course in real estate law might help as an alternative. Or even an entry level course in “business” might do the trick.

            And if your point is that a court of law generally can’t do that, who do you suppose should rule on that very issue so that we can come up with the best 5 Year Plan?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s not that health insurance provided no value but rather that health insurance was not available to all.”

            Oh. I see. That old problem. Why do we still have poor people? Why? Bad leadership and bad laws! We should outlaw poverty! We should have a War On Poverty! That will solve everything. And in this war we can create an institution I will call “Social Security” and I will create other agencies to solve these issues once and for all! And if that doesn’t work I’ll socialize medicine and cars and the Internet and, well, everything else until the rich people turn over their money trees to the state! As they should have long ago! Then we can finally come up with the magic 5 Year Plan!

            Forward!!!

          • Americana

            Social Security was not designed to eliminate poverty or poor people. It was designed to be a self-sustaining system into WHICH PEOPLE PAID to support themselves and America’s elderly into old age. The fact subsequent generations abused the original point of the system and began the myth of American early retirement at age 40 or 45 or 50 is what is unrealistic about present concepts of retirement in the U.S.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Social Security was not designed to eliminate poverty or poor people. It was designed to be a self-sustaining system into WHICH PEOPLE PAID to support themselves and America’s elderly into old age”

            How did they formulate the name if it doesn’t provide social security? That’s weird! I never noticed that! So you think it’s a scam or something? Because it pretty much failed to do what you say it was designed to do.

            “The fact subsequent generations abused the original point of the system and began the myth of American early retirement at age 40 or 45 or 50 is what is unrealistic about present concepts of retirement in the U.S.”

            Oh. It’s not that the idea was bad or that the creators failed to foresee the future. Their plans were perfect! They just failed to find the right magic bureaucrats in subsequent generations. Or something. Weird!

          • Americana

            It didn’t fail to do what is was designed to do. It worked flawlessly for 90 years and though it has run into issues for a few reasons, because of the demographic reversal in the U.S as well as pressure by retirees retiring too young, it was a great idea to have a forced retirement program into which everyone paid their share of their relative income. Social Security can be fixed if we insist on certain realistic standards for taking out SS benefits. There’s absolutely no limit to your anti-government stance, is there?

            http://www.afsa.org/retiree/SocialSecurityReform.cfm

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “On the other hand, if you’re denying…”

            I’m denying that your testimony has any value. It’s mendacious.

            The world is flawed. Humans are flawed. We have legal frameworks for working out some flaws according to our Constitution. That’s not good enough for you. You need to attack our Constitution just like every other Utopian communist.

          • Americana

            There you go again spewing out ‘mendacious’ and ‘mendacity’ to beat the band. It certainly is the word du jour around FPM. Not sure why words run in cycles around here but it’s got to be a function of propaganda. Repeat a word often enough and you hope that the meaning is indelibly attached to something or someone…

            This is not an attack on the Constitution. Much as you’d like that concept to carry the argument. Besides, the case could be made that the phrase about “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” would eventually mean an endorsement of health insurance. You do know that the original rough draft by Thomas Jefferson was worded in this way, “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the PRESERVATION of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.”

            I’d say health insurance was sort of key to the preservation of life, wouldn’t you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There you go again spewing out ‘mendacious’ and ‘mendacity’ to beat the band.”

            Is this how you ask for dictionary help?

          • Americana

            No, as I wrote, there are popular words that pop up every other week. It’s as if someone reads one of the FPM bloggers, picks out the word to focus on for the week, preferably one that sounds intellectual and begins to use it. Then everyone uses the word and then everyone finds themselves overusing the word but it’s too late, they’ve got a word worm in their ear so they end up killing the word’s effect by overusing the word. Shall I put up a list of the overused words I’ve noticed over my time here or perhaps make note of when a word has started down this path as being the Word of the Week from here on out?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Suit yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Words do often have specific meanings. Right? People string words together to communicate ideas. Some times words get recycled. And when people show the same kinds of behaviors over and over again, the same words will likely be recycled to describe those repetitive behaviors.

            Weird, eh?

            Take another bong hit, space case.

          • Americana

            Nah, the propagandistic nature of the vocabulary and dialogue are too freakishly repetitive to be just a happenstance thing. Never used a bong in my life… Just FYI for future posts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re projecting. You’re confused and you bullshit everyone so you worry about how people will perceive you based on trivial criteria like word selection rather than the ideas you present.

            You certainly have used spiritual and intellectual “bongs.” Something gets you in a state of euphoria that makes you think you can bullshit people and eventually mow them over just from persistence and being “socially correct.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It certainly is the word du jour around FPM. Not sure why words run in cycles around here but it’s got to be a function of propaganda.”

            That is correct. Propaganda is spewed by liars and repeated by dupes. Mendacity is a word that can be used to conflate liars and dupes that repeat he nonsense unknowingly when there is no reason or way to parse them.

            http://www.merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/mendacious

            men·da·cious

            adjective men-ˈdā-shəs

            : not honest : likely to tell lies

            : based on lies

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Besides, the case could be made that the phrase about “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” would eventually mean an endorsement of health insurance.”

            Thanks for the belly laugh. You communists can say anything. You don’t realize that rights have no existence in a vacuum. They’re used to balance one person or faction’s rights against an allegedly infringing party that also has its own set of rights.

            Get it? No rights are absolute and isolated from reality. Only in theory. You can say “due process” can’t ever be legally alienated. Sure. But you might still end up dead at the hands of the state and there is no precise way to judge in any absolute sense what due process is.

            “You do know that the original rough draft by Thomas Jefferson was worded in this way, “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the PRESERVATION of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.””

            You know about the French Revolution I assume. Our framework is not designed for anything like French notions of egalitarianism. Our framers strove to ensure equality before the law, not equality of outcome. They were non-coercive socialists. They would not have created strong property rights tools if they didn’t see how essential they are to liberty AND growth of a nation not to mention civilization itself.

          • Americana

            Oh, so now you write our natural rights are not absolute even though that is how they’re described in the founding documents? They only fail in their absolutism when they infringe on others’ rights. French egalitarianism is not fundamentally different from American egalitarianism, wherever did you come up w/that wacko idea that it was? You mean just because the French eventually got around to national health care and national college education, they were always outright Socialists forever after they’d fomented the French Revolution?

            Our founders were NON-COERCIVE SOCIALISTS? That’s news to me. That’s gotta be a new term that’s been coined to describe how it is they gently taxed their fellow citizens at a particular level of income. Of course, you’re willing to concede there is a softer side to Socialism, given that this term has been invented, so perhaps there’s hope for you yet. However, if the Founders were NON-COERCIVE Socialists, just where does coercive Socialism start w/American politicians? The Founders set taxes. The Founders built infrastructure from that tax levy. Some of the greatest infrastructure advances of the nation’s history were built in the first century and a half of its existence. There is NO WAY to tell how the Founding Fathers would have counseled the country in this day and age. There’s no way based on the documents they left behind and there’s no way based on their personal papers. However, I know from their writing that they would have always been prepared for the new challenges the nation faces and they wouldn’t shy away from making sensible choices. That was their nature and their intellect followed their nature.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, so now you write our natural rights are not absolute even though that is how they’re described in the founding documents?”

            I’m comparing theory to reality. Evidently you’re confused again. What is theoretically absolute is that these rights can’t be removed by the government from the people collectively. However, part of due process is reviewing how these rights play out under the principals of equality before the law.

            So sure we can regard them as inalienable in that courts and Congress in theory can’t take them away from our social contract but that doesn’t mean you have an absolute right to pursue happiness and therefore the right to be made whole because someone according to you makes you unhappy by defending their property rights.

            I never realized you were so dumb. All you are owed is due process under the law. Your rights are still finite. You can strive to be infinitely happy up until you bump in to someone else’s rights and then a court might make you unhappy. And if you then argue you have a right to happiness people will laugh and laugh and laugh.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Our founders were NON-COERCIVE SOCIALISTS? That’s news to me.”

            That’s not shocking to me.

            “That’s gotta be a new term that’s been coined to describe how it is they gently taxed their fellow citizens at a particular level of income.”

            They didn’t tax their citizens to achieve social equality or equality of condition. Taxes were for specific limited purposes.

            “Of course, you’re willing to concede there is a softer side to Socialism…”

            The objectives of socialism are noble. At least coming from truly altruistic thinkers. If you go back to the early discourse. There were some idiots but there was a lot of valid criticism about the status quo. It is unfair to have royals and nobles and other unelected people running around with more power than the lower classes with very little social mobility and leveraging their power to exploit people. This was most visible in new projects and enterprises made possible by emerging technologies.

            By the way, some of the earliest people to work their way up from peasant to something better were those who learned how to manage entrepreneurial enterprises. You look back and sneer at them as “capitalists.” It was NOT capitalists that lorded it over the peasants. It was the upper classes that had not earned their status.

            “However, if the Founders were NON-COERCIVE Socialists, just where does coercive Socialism start w/American politicians? The Founders set taxes.”

            Coercive socialism is any project that forces participation in the name of “social justice” that is not explicitly called for under our Constitution or if it is done for wealth redistribution.

            “The Founders built infrastructure from that tax levy.”

            So?

            “There is NO WAY to tell how the Founding Fathers would have counseled the country in this day and age.”

            Their writings provide clues but as individuals they might have evolved. That is no reason to completely discard the lessons as you have.

            “There’s no way based on the documents they left behind and there’s no way based on their personal papers.”

            No way for you.

            “However, I know from their writing that they would have always been prepared for the new challenges the nation faces and they wouldn’t shy away from making sensible choices. That was their nature and their intellect followed their nature.”

            And therefore they’d be statists? No, I don’t’ think so.

            Now they might have evolved to approve of safety nets but certainly not fraud.

          • Americana

            I’ve never, EVER SNEERED at capitalists as a class in the economic tier. In fact, the only time I’ve sneered at a capitalist was when I snarked at YOU because you sneered at me first and called me a Communist in your post!

            If you’ll note, I frequently laud the capitalists who come up w/truly innovative ideas that will push things in a great direction. I post story links to the really fascinating capitalists I read about including my most recent post about Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of Theranos, a phlebotomy start-up that’s set to revolutionize blood tests.
            ( http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/ )

            That’s not because I spend my time plotting against the capitalists of the world, rather that’s because my understanding of the greatest capitalists is that they recognize NEW OPPORTUNITIES where others did not. There’s nothing WRONG w/MY APPRECIATION nor UNDERSTANDING of capitalism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s nothing WRONG w/MY APPRECIATION nor UNDERSTANDING of capitalism.”

            You’re technically a fascist. Fascists say that capitalism is OK but they attack every enterprise that is not delivering the right “social value” according to their own standards. Then again, just about every communist is a socialist and fascist as well, all things considered.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve never, EVER SNEERED at capitalists as a class in the economic tier.”

            Dumbass,

            “Economic tiers” are paradigmatic views. Who in the heck would sneer at members of an imposed classification? Who would even suggest that?

            You don’t understand any of the discourse. You’re trying to paint yourself as a centrist.

            ———>>> The issue is that you’re totally ignorant and you are a communist because:

            —————–>>> You think there are actually issues where your “right to happiness” can contend legally with property rights.

            That is what makes you a communist. All of the rest is just you playing rhetorical games that you don’t even understand.

          • Americana

            Hahaha, now you’re crediting me w/thinking of myself as a CENTRIST??? Lordy, but you do shift positions when the wind blows or your hot air blows. “Thar he blows!” is going to be my phrase for you from now on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Shut up, moron.

          • Americana

            No, I think it’s about time that the true morons in the crowd shut up and/or GROW UP. Don’t complain simply because you write diatribes that include abysmally constructed thoughts that someone like me can come along 30 seconds later and lampoon. You’ve been conducting a Saturday Night Live routine here for far too long. Now that the audience is more critical of the thinking that’s being served up by people like yourself, you’re all blowing gaskets right and left. Sharpen up your game.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re the only one trying to “unmask” what I say on the topic.

            So, moron, just shut up and read the 6-part article.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’d say health insurance was sort of key to the preservation of life, wouldn’t you?”

            No, but you should not be prevented from entering in to any lawful contracts in your pursuit for happiness and you should not tap my pockets because you envision a more just world when you suggest it.

            Whoever told you that you’re not a communist is an idiot. It’s like telling jihadis they’re not Muslim because they’re not zealous enough. You know, still being alive and all. Only death during jihad can prove one’s communist bona fides.

          • Americana

            Ah, but the Constitution doesn’t make any such statement about “being pressured into unlawful contracts while in pursuit of happiness”. It simply states the State shouldn’t get in the way of your pursuit of happiness. As for “not tapping into your pockets”, the original documents didn’t say what was a reasonable tapping into someone’s pockets but the founders certainly understood that taxes were an innate part of governing for the greater good and the well-being of all, from infrastructure right on down to municipal water supplies and streets and street lights. I’d hardly say they would likely to be averse to evaluating health insurance for legislation if they were here today or even if they were faced w/the issues of today way back when. But they weren’t and they had no idea what would transpire w/medicine, or health insurance for that matter, so it’s a moot point bringing up the Founders. What we do know about them is they were INTENSELY PRACTICAL AS WELL AS IDEALISTIC so I’m fairly certain they would fall to my side of the equation on wishing for a restructuring of the extremely effed up health care system.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If your “industry connection”…”

            It’s not just some connection where some guy whispers in my ear and I lap it up. It’s experience from just about every relevant perspective. For one thing I had to integrate all of the databases so that all of the various factions could work together, including with the FDA and other regulators, doctors, patients, and every aspect of designing, producing, selling, distributing, satisfying regulators, on and on and on. And not just sitting back and connecting databases but looking at front end design so that each department could access it and rate the usability. I designed training manuals and engaged in long-term discussions with employees about how to make sure the data integration and reporting tools were optimized for their needs. If I don’t understand their needs I am handicapped. If I don’t understand the regulations I can’t even begin to do the job. Putting all of that together gives me more diverse views to test an opinion when someone says something is broken or there oughta be a law against disappointment.

            And what I can say is that it opened my eyes to the idea that government regulations are some times very good, but most new ones are almost always very bad. And just about all social justice interventions are based on Ponzi schemes. It helped me a lot in understanding the economists that rant against unneeded interventions.

            My grandfather was also a jurist that consulted for insurance companies. I’m not going to say I learned directly from him. But these kinds of issues were discussed around holiday gatherings since my earliest age. When your family has certain values and ideas about social justice you test them over time and you keep your eyes and ears open to new information. Or at least my advice is that everyone should always test ideas with their ongoing exposure to evidence.

            I’ve heard all of the various narratives and I’ve been in the middle from every perspective I can think of.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Because if you did have those connections, you’d realize how many doctors believe the ACA or something drastic along those lines was long overdue.”

            SHow me their testimony. I don’t recall every meeting a doctor that approved of the ACA as written. Maybe some improvements in theory that they would have hoped would have BETTER regulations rather than just more “do something” that sounds good but isn’t. Few doctors are that stupid.

          • Americana

            If you really knew about the subject from both sides — the insurance industry side and the doctor side — you’d know doctors are upset w/insurance companies as well as the overall health care affordability spiral because of the role the insurance companies are playing in their health care choices.
            __________________________________________________________________________

            http://www.nejmcareercenter.org/minisites/rpt/8-ways-that-the-aca-is-affecting-doctors-incomes/

            From the above link:

            Here are 8 ways that the ACA is likely to affect your income. Is your practice ready?

            More Covered Services
            The new law removes some major impediments in insurance coverage for your patients and mandates some extra services that your payers may not have covered previously.[1]

            “There are strong feelings for and against the ACA, but this group of provisions has broad support,” said Jeffrey Cain, MD, President of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). He added that these reforms would help physicians because “patients who have insurance and access to primary care have better health outcomes.”

            In 2011 and 2012, the ACA required insurers to cover 63 different preventive services without requiring an out-of-pocket payment from patients.[2] The services include blood pressure and mammography screenings, a variety of immunizations, childhood behavioral and autism screenings, and — controversially — access to contraception. Practices can expect reimbursement for these services without needing to collect any money from patients.

            Then, on January 1, 2014, individual and small group plans will have to cover specific services, called “essential health benefits,” including maternity care, mental health services, medications, rehabilitation services, and chronic disease management. Again, insurers will have to pay physicians and other providers for these services.

            Also, plans will be barred from discriminating against people for pre-existing conditions, and they cannot set annual or lifetime limits on coverage. These provisions will be important to your patients with chronic conditions who currently can lose coverage when they switch jobs and may have bills that exceed their insurance limits.

            More Patients With Coverage
            Also next year, millions of newly insured Americans will be looking for a primary care physician and eventually specialists as well. Enrollees in the new health insurance exchanges will be mostly low-income people who will get subsidies to buy coverage and pay out-of-pocket charges.[3]

            The other sector of newly covered Americans will be part of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to those living at 138% of the federal poverty level. This will be crucial for low-income childless adults, who currently have little or no coverage. However, the Supreme Court last year allowed states to reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they would not have to pay anything for the first 3 years of the expansion, approximately half of the states are refusing to participate.

            Dr. Cain said that coverage through the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion will be a boon for family physicians, who see an average of 8 patients a week on a discounted or free basis. “This new coverage will mean that family physicians can have a financially viable practice,” he said.

            Exchange plans have not yet announced reimbursement rates for physicians, and it’s not clear yet whether rates would be lower than those of other commercial plans. Because exchange plans serve a low-income population, they are under a great deal of pressure to keep premiums affordable. To keep costs down, many exchange plans have won discounts from hospitals by excluding high-priced hospitals from their exchange networks and rewarding in-network hospitals with higher volume.
            __________________________________________________________________________

            http://www.drsforamerica.org/about

            From the above link:

            Our Mission

            Doctors for America is a national movement of more than 16,000 physicians and medical students in all 50 states working together to improve the health of the nation and to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, high quality health care.

            Our Vision

            We envision a fair, effective and affordable health care system — one fundamentally transformed and guided by the core values of doctors and our patients.

            Doctors are critical to rebuilding our health care system. From the front lines of our health system, we use our stories and experiences — anchored in our relationships with patients — to improve the health care system for everyone.

            Who We Are

            We are 16,000 physicians and medical students in all 50 states. We practice and study in the largest cities and the smallest towns of America from New York City to Oklahoma City. We work in private practices, academic centers, community health centers, and government-run systems like the Veteran’s Affairs and the Indian Health Service. We are in primary care and subspecialties. Some of us are just embarking on their medical careers and some have retired – most are somewhere in between. Some of us are deans of medical schools, nationally renowned health policy experts. Nearly all of us take care of patients. Many of us have never ventured into politics before, but driven by pragmatic idealism, we are bringing the voice of physicians to communities across the country and to the national stage.

            What has brought us together is a desire to improve our health care system. We use the strength of our diverse backgrounds and common vision to build a robust and sustainable national movement and improve the health of the nation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            In economic fascism you can create some winners. They simply point out that you can choose to roll with the punches and try to accept new realities. I don’t see how you could think that’s a compelling testimony that the ACA is good for America in any way other than to point out that in wealth redistribution there are winners and losers. If you want to adapt economically you have to know who the winners are and adjust accordingly.

            You’re helping maybe (in theory) several million people at the expense of many more who are now hurt AND you’re punishing successful people at the expense of the “poor” who may be statistically poor in part because they have gamed the system.

            Again, only a communist would think this testimony shows “goodness” of the ACA. Or if you are one of the beneficiaries you can selfishly say YOU came out ahead. Yeah for thieves!

            In fact look at what they say:

            “The Game May Play Out Differently
            Exchange plans’ discounts-for-volume tactic may not work on physicians.”

            Really? Why?

            ” Many practices already have full appointment books and are not interested in getting more patients.”

            So doctors in demand might be hurt? The good doctors that have enough satisfied clients will be screwed. Hmmmm…

            “In fact, there are signs that a large proportion of physicians will refuse to join exchange plans, which would mean that exchange plans would have to offer reasonable rates just to have enough physicians in their networks.”

            Why would they do that?

            So you read that and you understood that doctors are happy?

          • Americana

            Well, I wouldn’t have allowed the insurance industry to write the ACA legislation but that is the ONLY WAY anything would have been passed this time around. So, you can attribute any issues w/the ACA plan to there always would have been the expectation of innate flaws in the ACA but I know that the “flaws,” such as they are, were written into the ACA in order to preserve insurance industry protocols and profits as much as possible.

            “In fact, there are signs that a large proportion of physicians will refuse to join exchange plans, which would mean that exchange plans would have to offer reasonable rates just to have enough physicians in their networks.

            Umm, isn’t it clear to you from this above sentence that the insurance industry is still controlling the prices on these plans and that they are likely taking more for themselves than doctors might be earning as their share? Luckily, there are some companies on the horizon that really intend to be game changers. I mean just look at what a game changer Theranos’ blood tests are expected to be:

            http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/

            None of this would work if Theranos hadn’t figured out how to make testing trans­parent and inexpensive. The company plans to charge less than 50 percent of the standard Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. And unlike the rest of the testing industry, Theranos lists its prices on its website: blood typing, $2.05; cholesterol, $2.99; iron, $4.45. If all tests in the US were performed at those kinds of prices, the company says, it could save Medicare $98 billion and Medicaid $104 billion over the next decade.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Umm, isn’t it clear to you from this above sentence that the insurance industry is still controlling the prices on these plans…”

            Umm, no, they negotiate with the government instead of payers now. THANKS A LOT!!!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, I wouldn’t have allowed the insurance industry to write the ACA legislation but that is the ONLY WAY anything would have been passed this time around.”

            How do you know which set of lies is most effective? Clairvoyant?

            “So, you can attribute any issues w/the ACA plan to there always would have been the expectation of innate flaws in the ACA but I know that the “flaws,” such as they are, were written into the ACA in order to preserve insurance industry protocols and profits as much as possible.”

            This sounds like the kind of discourse communists worry about. Because all of the flaws from the communist POV can be chalked up to failing to take enough power. That’s how communists roll.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “None of this would work if Theranos hadn’t figured out how to make testing trans­parent and inexpensive. The company plans to charge less than 50 percent of the standard Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. And unlike the rest of the testing industry, Theranos lists its prices on its website: blood typing, $2.05; cholesterol, $2.99; iron, $4.45. If all tests in the US were performed at those kinds of prices, the company says, it could save Medicare $98 billion and Medicaid $104 billion over the next decade.”

            Another “evil corporation” being instantly transformed by making the right claims and looking for a crony deal.

            The question is why would this have not happened in a free market? That’s the only true proving ground for offering things you think people want.

          • Americana

            The Theranos startup DID HAPPEN in A FREE MARKET and isn’t seeking crony deals, dummy. Elizabeth Holmes simply went looking for a venue where her blood-testing technology would be highly used and appreciated and she settled on Walgreens. This is an ULTRA SMART and logical business choice considering its status as one of the premier pharmacy chains where many people w/chronic illnesses requiring monthly prescriptions and monthly monitoring through their doctors would find and utilize her blood-testing equipment. I’m SHOCKED you’d sneer at a PREMIER EXAMPLE of someone I consider a BRILLIANT, NASCENT CAPITALIST on her very first venture. She’s destined for big things. Good for her! Better for us! Good for health care overall since it will take some of the pressure off laboratories. And, yes, I’m aware there will be unintended consequences from the reduction in blood-tests done by other labs.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m only sneering at your stupidity.

            “And, yes, I’m aware there will be unintended consequences from the reduction in blood-tests done by other labs.”

            Oh Jeez. You need to start over or just get over the fact that you are clueless. There is no downside for society when innovation emerges in free markets.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you really knew about the subject from both sides — the insurance industry side and the doctor side — you’d know doctors are upset w/insurance companies as well as the overall health care affordability spiral because of the role the insurance companies are playing in their health care choices.”

            The issue is whether you have any qualifications for judging what I say.

            One more time: Interventions cause prices to go up and often also cause diversity of choices to go down. Doctors (unless they are communists – and a few are) would prefer to have “better” regulations than now. Being unhappy with the status quo is NOT the same as endorsing new proposals, and certainly not as a bundle just because they try to adapt to new realities.

            You can’t make everyone happy with laws. You just can’t do it. Stop with the extreme communist delusion.

          • Americana

            No, the issue is whether what YOU have to say OUTWEIGHS what real live doctors, many of them SPECIALISTS, have to say. I have many doctor friends in different specialties, and although some of them have different solutions to the issues that ail medicine today, they all say that insurance is the biggest bear in medicine at the moment. That it simply guzzles money without earning it in a substantive way. What they mean, of course, is that the insurance agency earns it without playing any RATIONAL role in the clinical decisions and merely only tangentially assists in minor ways in the record-keeping. Even there, the record-keeping that insurance agencies maintain is PURELY FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. So, you stop it w/the extreme delusions on behalf of the health insurance industry.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…something drastic along those lines was long overdue.”

            Something drastic is not “anything” drastic will due.

          • Americana

            No, I don’t want to increase the complexity of those relationships. **That’s your claim as to my overall aims.** Obviously, I don’t want to increase the complexities if I’m stating that there is no reason for us to direct money at insurance companies if we’re interested in reducing costs. As for “mediating” being a vital part of health care, mediating and mediators are only vital because the insurance company is trying to control its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, I don’t want to increase the complexity of those relationships. **That’s your claim as to my overall aims.**”

            I’m saying that’s the effect of your wishes. You want a bundle, and I’m explaining what the bundle really contains.

            Let me just say that I understand you have good intentions and that if your vision of the world and the law reflected reality I would not have a problem with your objectives. But as I’ve said thousands of times now you are a dupe and you only understand the talking points that are focused on the sizzle and not the steak. Everyone wants “good things” and nobody likes fraud. The ACA is fraud in ways that you can’t see.

            It’s just that politicians have been able to get way bit by bit with more and more of these kinds of fraudulent theories for passing “social justice” laws and voters can’t understand the “bundle’ that they’re offered. They only understand (maybe) what is being promised and then some of the mendacious talking points written by guys like Gruber.

          • Americana

            The ACA is what the insurance industry ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. You are representative of the intransigent people who that would prefer to believe our health care system is fine. You also would prefer to believe there is no better system that can be constructed, yet there is.

            My vision of the world and of the law reflects what we need to accomplish. It’s got nothing to do w/tolerating our current plight just because this is how the American health care system developed this way. You obviously don’t talk to doctors as a source of your ideas on health care. A clinical cardiologist friend of mine left her practice because she was fed up w/dealing w/insurance and quibbling w/mediators. (You know, those “mediators who don’t interfere w/your choices once the contract is signed for your health insurance plan.”) Many other doctors are doing the same and they’ve chosen to provide a la carte medical care. Learn something about the doctors who’ve opted out of insurance-based medicine SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID MEDIATORS and INAPPROPRIATE MEDIATION and get back to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The ACA is what the insurance industry ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. You are representative of the intransigent people who that would prefer to believe our health care system is fine. ”

            So you think if the insurance companies win, that makes everything OK? It’s still a free market delivering maximum value because they say so? Do you understand what cronyism is? Fascist economics is very similar and has the same problems. Call it cronyism or capitalism. I’m against ruining free markets in favor of stupid ideas. I don’t care of some for profit faction is able to get in bed with the government. That makes it worse. You don’t make sense.

            “You also would prefer to believe there is no better system that can be constructed, yet there is.”

            No dummy. In a free market, innovation comes organically from the pressure to compete. It’s delusional to think that injected politics and shifting empowerment accountability frameworks will lead to more innovation rather than less. People will come up with innovative ways to game the system. That’s not progress. We want openness and fairness through the principal of equality before the law. You moved away from everything that made America great. But you don’t know that of course because you never learned about that greatness in the first place. You only heard some weird interpreted view about good luck and oppression of the little guy. Where does that come from to suggest that free market capitalism is innately unjust and inefficient? Where?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My vision of the world and of the law reflects what we need to accomplish.”

            If you were not delusional, you’d say “My vision of the world and of the law reflects what I believe we need to accomplish.”

            And I’d say that’s fine but you need to realize that you’re essentially ignorant. You’re not ready for prime time. You need to keep an open mind rather than look for talking points to use to pester people online that you just don’t like for ruining your Utopian visions.

            “It’s got nothing to do w/tolerating our current plight just because this is how the American health care system developed this way. You obviously don’t talk to doctors as a source of your ideas on health care. A clinical cardiologist friend of mine left her practice because she was fed up w/dealing w/insurance and quibbling w/mediators.

            Dumbass, the problem with “insurers” is that government set limits. Without government interference NO doctor would ever have a problem with reimbursement. What they object to is the combination of insurer and regulator forcing them to take lower payments and in some cases turn away patients that are willing to pay more.

            “(You know, those “mediators who don’t interfere w/your choices once the contract is signed for your health insurance plan.”)”

            Now you’re going to try to create even more straw men? You’re making my case for me as if the ACA is going to solve problems created by private enterprise when in reality, as I said at the outset, it is the government interventions that allow insurers to wreck doctors financial models. Without what we can call economic fascism, the doctor can simply refuse any given transaction. You’re making my case for me without even recognizing it.

            “Many other doctors are doing the same and they’ve chosen to provide a la carte medical care. Learn something about the doctors who’ve opted out of insurance-based medicine SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID MEDIATORS and INAPPROPRIATE MEDIATION and get back to me.”

            Just wait to see if a medical billing clerk or a doctor is following this conversation and you’ll get schooled.

            And finally, doctors opting out of performing insurance billing is the best idea. Why? Because then people (patients) will only use insurance policies that allow the patient to take care of billing and then pay the doctor. If the insurance company doesn’t reimburse 100% that’s the patient’s decision to proceed. It preserves crucial freedoms.

            Having doctors opting out of the billing role is a great solution if that is what they choose to do. You’re an idiot to think this is a problem caused by private enterprise.

            You’re a freaking moronic Marxist. Smart Marxists at least know where their ideas come from.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for “mediating” being a vital part of health care, mediating and mediators are only vital because the insurance company is trying to control its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.”

            I think that again you don’t understand the term mediation. Once the contract is accepted by all parties, there isn’t that much ongoing negotiation. And if you want a blank check for coverage (no mediation whatsoever after the policy is accepted by all parties) you’re premium costs will go WAY up.

            You know that saying about cake? Has anyone ever offered you a magic cake that tasted delicious but remains whole at the same time so that you could enjoy its beauty forever? This is the kind of circumstance people are trying to illuminate. You’re wanting something for nothing but losing track of what exactly you’re demanding. It’s chaotic zero sum negotiations. You think just pressure will eventually deliver “solutions” that you want, especially if the government is involved? Just keep marching in the streets and launching Molotov cocktails at the Occupy protests and eventually the rich capitalists will share their money trees with you.

            All of this magical thinking that operates based on rich people “holding out” and the government magically performing better than private enterprise.

          • Americana

            Here again, you’ve gone way overboard in the wrong direction w/this sentence of yours “…you don’t understand the term mediation. Once the contract is accepted by all parties, there isn’t that much ongoing negotiation.”

            If there weren’t “that much ongoing mediation,” it wouldn’t be an intrinsic part of ALL modern health care plans. Just how many mediations have you faced w/your OWN health care choices? Just how DISINGENUOUS are you?? Mediation isn’t ongoing???? How many lies are you going to insert in posts on this issue? Shall I put up some letters on FPM I’ve received from former mediators who moved into other careers because of the insurance industry practices and who’ve written things like, “We’re told to REFUSE the first THREE or FOUR REQUESTS and only if someone persists do we begin the mediation process of deciding whether to meet their request.”

            Either you’ve never had someone face the termination of their health care or you’ve never dealt w/someone who’s been in a protracted battle w/cancer. Both of these cases are people who’ve failed the health insurance industry. The first person because they didn’t get better within X-period of time and the second because their illness is too intransigent. Both of those situations require that medical care still be provided. Mediation is a way for the insurance industry to figure out the cheapest way to achieve the health aim and has nothing to do w/the preferences of the doctors involved. You’re acting like doctors and patients have no common sense and won’t look at the cost/benefit analysis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If there weren’t “that much ongoing mediation,” it wouldn’t be an intrinsic part of ALL modern health care plans. Just how many mediations have you faced w/your OWN health care choices? Just how DISINGENUOUS are you?? Mediation isn’t ongoing???”

            Idiot, try to learn rather than pick at lint. I didn’t say no mediation. I said less. And if you have a contract and you’re unhappy, an unhappy client will find it easier to fight against an insurer than against the government. People that expect perfect outcomes will never accept accountability for understanding the contracts that they sign. Buyer (must) beware and accept accountability for the role. You might need active mediation but you might not.

            Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about and your whole MO is to convert your own confusion in to something to use to attack people you disagree with.

          • Americana

            I’d say you’d exposed the real reasons behind mediators and mediating and the role they play in health insurance in these two paragraphs. You also state “there isn’t that much ongoing mediation.” when the reality is, there is NEGOTIATION OVER EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION between a doctor and his patient. That’s not “very little mediation,” that’s ONGOING HARASSMENT of the doctor and his/her treatment choices. You also don’t realize that in your first paragraph you’ve described the reasons health insurance doesn’t always allow doctors to opt for best practice. Strange, very strange… You make my case for me without even being aware of it.

            (OFM) “As for “mediating” being a vital part of health care, mediating and mediators are only vital because the insurance company is trying to control its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.”

            (OFM) I think that again you don’t understand the term mediation. Once the contract is accepted by all parties, ***there isn’t THAT MUCH ONGOING negotiation.*** And if you want a blank check for coverage (no mediation whatsoever after the policy is accepted by all parties) you’re premium costs will go WAY up.”If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Either you’ve never had someone face the termination of their health care or you’ve never dealt w/someone who’s been in a protracted battle w/cancer.”

            You’re using emotional arguments. Who is responsible for taking care of your provisions? Me? The government? Not you?

            “How many lies are you going to insert in posts on this issue? Shall I put up some letters on FPM I’ve received from former mediators who moved into other careers because of the insurance industry practices and who’ve written things like, “We’re told to REFUSE the first THREE or FOUR REQUESTS and only if someone persists do we begin the mediation process of deciding whether to meet their request.””

            Again, you are EXTREMELY confused. I am aware that people are unhappy. A cog in the machine is going to follow policies. They may not like or understand those policies. If you can show me how unhappy clerks somehow make the government or society at large responsible for taking care of your needs, then proceed with that. Until you can show why other people need to take responsibility for planning your provisioning, all of your arguments crumble in to nothing but the rants of the naive class of victims that are dupes of the statists.

          • Americana

            Interesting that you’d avoid the whole issue of former insurance industry agents who swear they’ve been told to refuse the first three or four requests for treatments. That’s not an emotional argument, that’s evidence from former employees who’ve decided to come clean about the practices of the insurance industry. Heck, I’ve gone to court over a car accident where I was rear-ended at a stoplight in a city w/witnesses who’d written I wasn’t at fault. I’d even had the time to look over my shoulder (my SOP) to see if the following driver was stopping once I’d braked. Instead, I see the guy looking at THREE WOMEN and their BUTTS on the sidewalk.

            My insurance company took his word over mine despite the fact I got him to ADMIT He WAS LOOKING AT WOMEN’S BUTTS TO THE POLICEMAN who arrived on the scene. The policeman ticketed that driver for inattentive driving. My insurance company said that the other driver had said I’d “slammed on my brakes.” Now, I don’t know about you, but if I had the time to look over my shoulder, realize this guy was looking at women’s butts instead of the road and then got him to admit this to the policeman, I’m NOT the DRIVER AT FAULT. My insurance company insisted for months that the other driver said I provoked the accident. Why was this insistence that I share the blame for this blatantly fault-free accident to their advantage? Because they could cover their costs of repairing my vehicle by RAISING MY PREMIUMS once I’d admitted I assumed some fault. I went to Small Claims court instead and I reported the agency to the Insurance Commissioner and to the Better Business Bureau. The judge in Small Claims court roared out laughing when I described the accident and supplied him w/the police report, “Did you back up and hit HIM?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 10 hours ago: “Interesting that you’d avoid the whole issue of former insurance industry agents who swear they’ve been told to refuse the first three or four requests for treatments. ”

            Show me any case and I’ll tell you where to file your lawsuit. No new laws needed.
            Get it? We have laws already. Did you not know that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re rants are so absurd that I have to modify my style a little. Here are my comments. Emotions aside, there is no “right to insurance.” There is our Constitution, there are disclosure laws, contract law, civil courts and so forth if you think you were defrauded by an optional contract that you signed. Oh wait, the government requires car insurance some times? Um…well they government doesn’t require you to drive. So anyway…your problems are caused by the government and every time your assumption is that the reason we don’t have > your vision < of what something should be like, the answer for you is that we need more laws and more sovereignty taken from individuals by the state. So in terms of your rankings, we no longer need a Geiger counter.

            Americana Rosso rant:

            "Heck, I've gone to court over a car accident where I was rear-ended at a stoplight in a city w/witnesses who'd written I wasn't at fault. I'd even had the time to look over my shoulder (my SOP) to see if the following driver was stopping once I'd braked. Instead, I see the guy looking at THREE WOMEN and their BUTTS on the sidewalk.

            My insurance company took his word over mine despite the fact I got him to ADMIT He WAS LOOKING AT WOMEN'S BUTTS TO THE POLICEMAN who arrived on the scene. The policeman ticketed that driver for inattentive driving. My insurance company said that the other driver had said I'd "slammed on my brakes." Now, I don't know about you, but if I had the time to look over my shoulder, realize this guy was looking at women's butts instead of the road and then got him to admit this to the policeman, I'm NOT the DRIVER AT FAULT. My insurance company insisted for months that the other driver said I provoked the accident. Why was this insistence that I share the blame for this blatantly fault-free accident to their advantage? Because they could cover their costs of repairing my vehicle by RAISING MY PREMIUMS once I'd admitted I assumed some fault. I went to Small Claims court instead and I reported the agency to the Insurance Commissioner and to the Better Business Bureau. The judge in Small Claims court roared out laughing when I described the accident and supplied him w/the police report, "Did you back up and hit HIM?"

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Interesting that you’d avoid the whole issue of former insurance industry agents who swear they’ve been told to refuse the first three or four requests for treatments.”

            It doesn’t matter! Communists like you always expect too much. Show the entire case or your example is worth ZERO!

            de·lu·sion

            dəˈlo͞oZHən/

            noun

            an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

            “I went to Small Claims court instead and I reported the agency to the Insurance Commissioner and to the Better Business Bureau. The judge in Small Claims court roared out laughing when I described the accident and supplied him w/the police report, “Did you back up and hit HIM?””

            You’re freaking unbelievable. So did you get justice according to your expectations or not? How do we know that your expectations are reasonable?

            You have delusional expectations of the world and particularly of what government can do for “progress.”

          • Americana

            You really think you can ask me if my expectations were reasonable in the case of this car accident? I was rear-ended at a stoplight and the light was red. I had a dozen witnesses who all wrote accident reports in my favour. The three women at whose butts this other driver was looking wrote witness reports for me! I was able to identify that that guy was a distracted driver and I got him to admit this to a policeman who put this information on the police report and ticketed the man and assigned all the blame to him. I think having gone to Small Claims court and having a judge ream out the other driver, ream out my insurance agent for his unethical behavior is a pretty good indication that my “expectations were reasonable.”

            I don’t have unreasonable expectations for what government can do for progress. As far as I’m concerned, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. It’s up to US PEOPLE to figure out what is best for us to do in each time period. But living in the 21st century while pretending that we can stick w/the good old-fashioned health insurance of the 1800s because that’s the way the insurance industry wants it doesn’t quite cut it for today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Mediation is a way for the insurance industry to figure out the cheapest way to achieve the health aim and has nothing to do w/the preferences of the doctors involved. You’re acting like doctors and patients have no common sense and won’t look at the cost/benefit analysis.”

            With no other insurance regulations, you’re already protected by contract law. What’s the problem? Oh, you signed something that you didn’t understand? Instead of learning about how to take care of your life needs you read a bunch of romance novels and watched a lot of television or pontificated with your “not” Marxist friends about how to solve the human condition by electing the right magic politicians?

            Oh, let me fix all of that for you. I’ll get right on it.

            And by the way I think standardizing disclosure requirements and other “market neutral” interventions are probably a good idea. Except that the more you coddle people the more they think the government has already made things safe for them. These disclosure laws end up confusing people in to thinking that the government has already ensured that everything is “fair” and they just use their own simplistic idea about what is fair. They don’t read the contracts. They sign. Then they get pissed and sit around drinking wine and talking about Marxist ideas for problem solving. Because they’re ignorant and learn by meme.

          • Americana

            That’s a pointless argument to make. It’s also ridiculous to think that one can be asked to sign contracts that don’t provide fully for the enormous complexity that is the human body. For an insurance agent to offer me 5 different policies to cover everything that might happen to my body w/separate charges for each of those policies is bizarre.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 37 minutes ago: “That’s a pointless argument to make.”
            You’re brain can’t handle much complexity.
            “It’s also ridiculous to think that one can be asked to sign contracts that don’t provide fully for the enormous complexity that is the human body.”
            Human knowledge already fails to account for the enormous complexity of the human body. Now what are you going to do? It’s almost like you’re saying that medicine could not have evolved to this point if we did not have insurance companies and super-bills to tell doctors what to do.
            “For an insurance agent to offer me 5 different policies to cover everything that might happen to my body w/separate charges for each of those policies is bizarre.”

            So it’s ridiculous to you that some people want different products and policies than you do?
            You’re really weird. No wonder you think some magic man can sit in some office somewhere and plan all of the “social justice” market interventions and bring forth Utopia.

          • Americana

            No, it’s only ridiculous that the insurance industry breaks down the possibilities into all manner of contracts so that if you really want coverage, you’ve got to buy several contracts. It’s a SHELL GAME and you’d better point at several shells or you’ll be SOL.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s ridiculous that the auto industry offers all of these cars. People might buy the wrong one! Plus…CAPITALISM IS EVIL!

            RIDICULOUS! We need magic politicians to design the ideal, green energy People’s Car! For the people!

            “It’s a SHELL GAME and you’d better point at several shells or you’ll be SOL.”

            If it’s a shell game, don’t force me to buy it like the ACA. At least when I recognize that some offer in the marketplace sucks, I just don’t accept the offer. What choice is there with the ACA?

            Get it? And you know whose money they’re hiding? PUBLIC FUNDS as well as ripping off people with absurd premiums on products that are not often suitable and certainly not ideal for most of the people being dictated to!

          • Americana

            See, you pretend you cannot understand the difference between a SINGLE, FINITE TRANSACTION of buying a product like a car and buying HEALTH INSURANCE which is a guessing game at best because of the product being bought being applied to the end product — the patient.

            There are MULTIPLE CHOICES w/the ACA. Don’t pretend there aren’t. As for the ACA ripping off public funds, there are public funds that are being used to treat the indigent anyway so let’s not pretend public funds don’t play a role under either the past or the present systems.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Right now there are hundreds of cars to choose from. If your messiah decides to “act” because “Congress refuses to deal with the nefarious market situation in the auto industry” by issuing directives on “auto neutrality” policies or something like that, I’d be pretty pissed if some of those cars I had my eye on were removed from the market – especially if there was no explanation other than “those were junk cars.” Really? OK, tell me why. Oh, you want all cars to be “gender neutral” according to what standard? WTF?

            That’s the kind of crap your hero bureaucrats come up with. And you love it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “See, you pretend you cannot understand the difference between a SINGLE, FINITE TRANSACTION of buying a product like a car and buying HEALTH INSURANCE which is a guessing game at best…”

            How long do you expect your car to last? Do you expect it to keep you alive in an accident? The choices you make are a lot closer to “insurance” than you seem to realize.

          • Americana

            Do you really want to take credit for having written this following sentence:

            (OFM) “It’s almost like you’re saying that medicine could not have evolved to this point if we did not have insurance companies and super-bills to tell doctors what to do.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 8 hours ago: “Do you really want to take credit for having written this following sentence: (OFM) “It’s almost like you’re saying that medicine could not have evolved to this point if we did not have insurance companies and super-bills to tell doctors what to do.””

            Sure. Why not?

          • Americana

            That’s not the sentence I’m calling into question but you can certainly pretend to the FPM audience at large that’s the question I’m ridiculing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It doesn’t matter. I’ve dealt with each complaint. Just because you don’t understand he discourse doesn’t mean anyone else is confused. I even gave you you links to explain what a value chain is and the role of finance or “money pools” or “layers.” And I gave you other links to show how Marx used his theories to create an alternate set of theories for how the world should work better by destroying private property rights.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go ahead and double down again. Show the sentence that confuses you and stop all of the whiny rants. It’s too hard to follow moronic boring people that think their victim narratives are interesting.

          • Americana

            Oh, it’s not “my whiny narrative”. This sentence is your whiny narrative and you’re trying to forget ITS CONTENT and cover it up w/heaps of other varied rants and pointing out my character flaws. It won’t happen. That sentence is going down in the history of FPM as one of the all-time great snafu statements.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That sentence is going down in the history of FPM as one of the all-time great snafu statements.”

            Actually it makes you look stupid to keep doubling down. Seems like you’ve had zero exposure to the fundamentals of economics. You have some whiny narratives though. All of the communists do.

            What’s a communist without the victim narratives? Not a communist, that’s for sure.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My “whiny narrative is” that people won’t spend money on something they don’t value unless they’re coerced?

            Ummm. Oh wait, you’re a communist. This whole thing seems weird to you. It’s “whiny” to defend individual sovereignty in the face of your victim narratives and the demands you propose for solving them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That sentence is going down in the history of FPM as one of the all-time great snafu statements.”

            You really should quote it every time you refer to it or else people will think you’re deliberately working on creating a mendacious meme.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 10 hours ago
            “That’s a pointless argument to make. It’s also ridiculous to think that one can be asked to sign contracts that don’t provide fully for the enormous complexity that is the human body. For an insurance agent to offer me 5 different policies to cover everything that might happen to my body w/separate charges for each of those policies is bizarre.”

            scope
            skōp/
            noun
            1.
            the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.
            “we widened the scope of our investigation”
            synonyms:extent, range, breadth, width, reach, sweep, purview, span, horizon;More

            2.
            the opportunity or possibility to do or deal with something.
            “the scope for major change is always limited by political realities”
            synonyms:opportunity, freedom, latitude, leeway, capacity, liberty, room (to maneuver), elbow room;

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re acting like doctors and patients have no common sense and won’t look at the cost/benefit analysis.”

            My point is that all of the problems are caused by interference, and when people want more interference to solve those problems and you get layer after layer of interventions that break things and become the cause of need for the next intervention. Instead of just optimizing it in the first place. Because it’s very difficult to efficiently organize an entire industry from the top down through the political process.

            The medical industry suffers under imposed inefficiencies and people that are unhappy with the human condition.

          • Americana

            Not all the problems are caused by interference, in fact it’s curious you’d bring up the word “interference” without realizing the insurance industry spends all its time “interfering between the patient and his doctor.” There is NO OTHER LEGITIMATE MEDICAL ROLE played by the insurance industry. Many of the imposed inefficiencies arise from the insurance industry requiring doctors and nurses to respond to insurance industry requests justifying care choices.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not all the problems are caused by interference, in fact it’s curious you’d bring up the word “interference” without realizing the insurance industry spends all its time “interfering between the patient and his doctor.”

            Holy cow. Who empowers insurance companies to “interfere” between patient and doctor, Ms. Clueless?

            “There is NO OTHER LEGITIMATE MEDICAL ROLE played by the insurance industry.”

            INSURANCE IS OPTIONAL! SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

            “Many of the imposed inefficiencies arise from the insurance industry requiring doctors and nurses to respond to insurance industry requests justifying care choices.””

            ONLY WHEN DOCTOR AND PATIENT BOTH AGREE TO ALLOW THIS EXPANDED RELATIONSHIP!

          • Americana

            (OFM) Holy cow. Who empowers insurance companies to “interfere” between patient and doctor?

            That’s been the historical relationship that’s been allowed to develop between the insurance agency and the doctor and patient and it’s become increasingly onerous over time as the role of insurance mediation has become the tactic of choice for preserving insurance agency profitability. As for doctors and nurses agreeing to the expanded relationship of fighting w/the insurance industry mediator and writing up demands for treatment time after time, that’s not a relationship that the medical community agreed to, that adversarial relationship has been forced on the medical community.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s been the historical relationship that’s been allowed to develop between the insurance agency and the doctor and patient and it’s become increasingly onerous over time as the role of insurance mediation has become the tactic of choice for preserving insurance agency profitability. ”

            Insurance is optional unless the government forces it on us. It’s worse when it forces it and limits choices.

          • Americana

            The only choices the ACA “limited” are plans that don’t offer sufficient coverage for all sorts of scenarios. Insurance in all sorts of categories is presently “forced on us by government.” Homeowners insurance, car insurance…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not all the problems are caused by interference, in fact it’s curious you’d bring up the word “interference” without realizing the insurance industry spends all its time “interfering between the patient and his doctor.” There is NO OTHER LEGITIMATE MEDICAL ROLE played by the insurance industry.”

            I already mentioned to you before that some doctors and patients prefer that the patient pay directly and seek reimbursement without involving the doctor / service provider.

            https://www.google.Com/search?client=opera&hs=i2R&biw=1366&bih=700&tbm=isch&q=superbill+medical+billing&revid=1660686351

            You take the appropriate standardized (government required) document home with you and pay the doctor yourself. Then you deal directly with the insurance for reimbursement.

            So how is the insurance company interfering with THAT doctor to to patient relationship other than accepting a standardized form and in the worse case refusing to pay? The doctor won’t care and probably won’t know unless the patient asks the doctor to help persuade the insurance company to pay. See? No coercion, no interference.

            Or you just pay as you go and become “self-insured.”

          • Pete

            And American complained bitterly that socialist and Ben Ghazi do not go together in a thread.

            But she is willing to discuss the ACA in a Ben Ghazi thread.

            Interesting.

          • Americana

            Le Fin.

          • Americana

            Le Fin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Pete • 2 hours ago: “Le Fin.”

            Americana Pete • 2 minutes ago: “Le Fin.”

            You don’t seem that certain.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This thread turned in to a real free for all.

            I never realized this one was such a lunatic. You called it correctly a long time ago.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re just another idiot savant. I hope you’re not a government leech as well.

          • Americana

            At least I have the ‘savant’ after my idiot title. I’m one word up on you. At least.

          • Americana

            Ah, at least I have ‘savant’ after my ‘idi0t.’ Someone else in this conversation doesn’t have the second word that makes up for the first word but he doesn’t know it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. You say you have a job and that you perform it well. I’ve know more than a few people like you. You’re not even that idiotic most of the time.

            You need to recognize when you’re in over your head.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go ahead and call me an idiot. I’d like to see that. Just do it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “DERAIL THE CONVERSATION and CLAIM I’m referring to denigrating the TOP-TIER CAPITALISTS who are defrauding the LITTLE OLD WORKER.”

            I’m explaining the origins of the claim that banks and insurance companies (financial institutions) don’t contribute to the value chain. The scale is different between what you’re talking about and the narratives that make people emotional, but it is 100% the same argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In the meantime, the sentence stands and what it says is that the insurance industry doesn’t ADD INTRINSIC VALUE to the health equation and the health outcome.”

            Who judges value? You? From the Commanding Heights? If they added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used. See, the only powerful entity that can really force someone to waste their money is your buddy the Federal Government.

          • Americana

            What a statement from you, guy! So TOTALLY YOU in your full glory!!! I guess you don’t realize what you’ve written in the following sentence:

            (objectivefactsmatter) “If they (insurance industry) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            Ummm, the insurance industry IS the SYSTEM that’s being used because that’s how the health insurance system developed over time in this country. The insurance industry isn’t being used because it’s been designed as the system of choice, it’s just played out this way. As for the insurance industry being allowed to continue its role, it’d have been a much more protracted legal struggle if the U.S. government and Congress had tried to formulate and pass a law through Congress that the insurance industry be bypassed. (I’m still chuckling at your above sentence… Lordy!)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You dummy. How can a group of competing companies be forced to do something wasteful without the government requiring it?

            “The industry” is a collection of organizations, not a massive coherent system coordinated by some evil star chamber. That would be illegal. Please research the history of antitrust laws in America along with your beginner’s economics studies.

          • Americana

            I’m the dummy when you pull something like the following? You, OBFM, were the one who wrote the following sentence ((objectivefactsmatter) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”) and have ever afterwards tried to attach your meaning, nonsensical though it is, to my analysis of the stupidity of that sentence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You still can’t spot your own errors.

            Explain how what I said is a problem other than your own confusion.

            “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            I’m sorry that I gave you too much credit and confused you further. That is how it goes some times. Now take responsibility for your ignorance.

          • Americana

            Take some responsibility for your own egotism and realize what a strange, weird sentence that is. Concentrate really, really hard on the last half of the sentence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So what? You’re tedious and I try to speed through on some concepts with the assumption that you can fill in the blanks. When you politely asked for clarification (let’s see where you asked me…) I rewrote the sentence for you.

            If you’re still confused you’re only testifying against yourself.

          • Americana

            I’m “tedious and I try to speed through on some concepts…” I hardly do that, I’m trying to keep your eyes on the big issue — the role insurance agencies play in health care. The biggest role insurance agencies play in health care is that of gatekeeper and scorekeeper.

            In this # below, you finally acknowledge that mediators and mediating are the means by which insurance companies try to control “its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.” However, there would be no need to preserve the insurance industry profit margin if they weren’t part of the health insurance mix.

            (OFM) “As for “mediating” being a vital part of health care, mediating and mediators are only vital because the insurance company is trying to control its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.”

            I understand the term mediation all too well. Obviously you choose to NOT UNDERSTAND just how pervasive and intrusive the role mediators play in health care or you wouldn’t make the TOTALLY SPURIOUS CLAIM that “there isn’t that much ongoing mediation (once the contract is signed).” Now, that sentence couldn’t possibly arise from ignorance of insurance industry practices, could it? I mean, you’re obviously an adult so you’d understand that the insurance mediator questions almost every transaction? I understand that mediation is an ongoing part of the insurance industry and that if someone doesn’t take the insurance agency mediator and the industry to task, one might not receive the care one needs. As for writing a “blank check for coverage,” no I’m not expecting that, but what I won’t tolerate is the insurance industry role being described as anything but what it is.

            (OFM) I think that again you don’t understand the term mediation. Once the contract is accepted by all parties, >>> THERE ISN’T THAT MUCH ONGOING MEDIATION.<<< And if you want a blank check for coverage (no mediation whatsoever after the policy is accepted by all parties) you're premium costs will go WAY up.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I hardly do that, I’m trying to keep your eyes on the big issue — the role insurance agencies play in health care.”

            You want to take every problem and make it worse. Great job!

            “In this # below, you finally acknowledge that mediators and mediating are the means by which insurance companies try to control “its expenditures relative to each client and his/her insurance premium and the overall premium pool which is done to preserve the insurance company profit margin.” However, there would be no need to preserve the insurance industry profit margin if they weren’t part of the health insurance mix.”

            You are still confused. They do not have to be in the middle. I have explained already. Without some regulations, you can have the doctor bill for you and then pay the difference. Then they are not mediating. They are simply a source for reimbursing your expenses. They can only mediate if doctor and patient agree with a specific kind of contract or worse, if the government is also involved.

            Get it? You are a typical Critical Theory victim. You start of with the premise that things should be a certain way and based on these delusions you make a hit list containing who is blocking you from this delusional set of expectations. Can you understand that statement conceptually?

            That’s why your assertions are so chaotic. You’re still offering your ideas with too many assumptions that you think are “common sense” and these assumptions are false.

            Now WRT removing “the industry” I’m assuming you’re talking about completely “socialized” medicine. You know what? GTF out of this country and stay in the UK where you belong. We’ll have you pass a test first before we consider allowing you to apply for a visa again. Because they have the magic solutions and you have no idea at all what you’re suggesting when you think what they have is superior to what we have.

            Frankly you’re a big waste of time if all you’re going to do is rant based on so many false assumptions. And you are indeed a Marxist. You might not envision “communism” as an end game but you’re all in for coercive socialism when you want something. You’re totally exposed. But tell me again how you were tested by Stalin’s nephew and he didn’t think you were a good enough communist. Whatever.

            “I’m not expecting that, but what I won’t tolerate is the insurance industry role being described as anything but what it is.”

            It’s not socialized medicine (poor you!). So F off you friggin’ communist! You won’t tolerate it? Wow. Maybe you are a radical revolutionary. Go join the environmental, “no justice, no peace” protests and all the other agitation because they want the exact same thing you do: Magic socialism.

          • Americana

            The fact it’s now possible for patients to pay the doctor and then to argue over costs w/the insurance agency mediator is not really a savings except for the possible reduction in mediation time of the mediator. That practice STILL MAINTAINS THE MEDIATION PROCESS on behalf of the insurance agency. Ah, now you’re willing to admit there is accuracy to what I’m saying about the insurance industry so I’ve suddenly morphed into being a friggin’ communist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 8 hours ago: “The fact it’s now possible for patients to pay the doctor and then to argue over costs w/the insurance agency mediator is not really a savings except for the possible reduction in mediation time of the mediator.”

            There are MANY different benefits to doing this. MANY MANY MANY.

            You’re too ignorant to waste spending time with about such advice.

            “That practice STILL MAINTAINS THE MEDIATION PROCESS on behalf of the insurance agency.”

            It remains an option on a case by case basis. Point? FREEDOM!

            “Ah, now you’re willing to admit there is accuracy to what I’m saying about the insurance industry so I’ve suddenly morphed into being a friggin’ communist.”

            What makes you a communist is not that you noticed that the world is imperfect but that you think that handing the government more and more power (and naturally money) can draw us closer to a perfect world.

            THAT is what makes you a communist!

          • Americana

            Mediation remains an option at the request of the insurance company. As for a patient’s right viz mediation, your right is to phone the company and argue w/the mediator. Often, the mediator wins. I would say it would mean “freedom” for the insured patient if they could call in an OUTSIDE MEDIATOR to mediate w/the insurance company’s mediator should problems arise.

            The fact there are Americans who realized that health insurance was going down the wrong road isn’t about “handing more and more power to the government”, this action was all about empowering people who’ve been stripped of their ability to buy health insurance. I’m glad you noticed that the health insurance world was imperfect and that it needed to fixed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact there are Americans who realized that health insurance was going down the wrong road…”

            So you represent a religious movement. Got any prophets yet?

          • Americana

            (OBFM) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            Think long and hard about why the above sentence makes no sense in terms of you defending the insurance industry and our discussion of the health insurance industry…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            Explain why that confuses you. Why would you pay for something that “adds no value?”

            Why? Because what? You’re the one complaining that certain companies do things wrong with “money pools” (I forget which terms you’ve used) and then you say the solution is to let the government force us to use them because the government knows better?

            See, you are insane. You think you can bootstrap an imprecise statement taken completely out of context and that makes you the winner?

          • Americana

            (OBFM) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            This statement doesn’t confuse me. Obviously, the details you’ve stated in this sentence confuse you or you wouldn’t have written the above sentence and then argued some of the points you’ve argued nor would you now turn around and claim that it “was an imprecise statement”. We pay for insurance because we must, most people don’t have money to pay for significant injuries or illnesses in full at the outset of treatment which is what is expected by hospitals and doctors. Or even if they do have the money to pay for one or two serious accidents or illnesses, they wouldn’t necessarily be able to continue to pay for a SEQUENCE of catastrophic illnesses or a catastrophic illness that went on for a long period.

            But unlike other products in the marketplace, the insurance contract doesn’t describe a simple, straightforward SINGLE transaction. Insurance contracts are designed to be far more complex and to state limits at every turn, and we have no influence or control over the product other than to buy or not to buy. Buying health insurance is the insurance industry requesting us to play the lottery and hoping for the best.

            Considering the “product” is health insurance which describes the complexity of what can go wrong w/the human body either by accident or by illness, If there were an insurance agency in existence where I could craft my own coverage using my own contractual language, I’m sure I’d feel the value I’d instilled in the contract was a little more value for the money. We all know that the money that insurance takes out of the equation is money that could be spent on ACTUAL MEDICAL CARE.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Take responsibility for your own success. You’re a communist. It never works like you think it will. Study some history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’ve displayed so much ignorance and defensiveness that I can hardly guess what exactly you’re hung up on now. Spit it out or take responsibility for your own stupidity.

            When you pay me to teach you, you can complain about my occasional laziness. And how much time have I already spent trying to help you?

          • Americana

            Oh, it’s not your “occasional laziness” that I’ve got a problem with, it’s your perennial arrogance that doesn’t recognize the shortfalls in your worldview and your education. As for “paying me to teach you,” this is an OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM, you are here as am I to wrestle w/alligators and try to make sense of issues.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Honestly you are very ignorant. Seriously.

            Narratives are not always based on facts. All you have are narratives that you think have emotional appeal and you think that makes them persuasive to educated adults.

            Also, learn the difference between educational achievements and completing indoctrination. Some indoctrination is useful. A lot isn’t.

          • Americana

            Here’s OFM at his best and brightest:

            “Human knowledge already fails to account for the enormous complexity of the human body. Now what are you going to do? It’s almost like you’re saying that medicine could not have evolved to this point if we did not have insurance companies and super-bills to tell doctors what to do.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I already admitted that it is ambiguous when taken out of context and read by ignorant people like you.

            Now admit that you are an ignorant noncommercial spammer.

          • Americana

            Admitting that sentence of yours is ambiguous doesn’t negate the fact that it’s a bizarre sentence given that medical insurance has never before been legally mandated (regardless of any presumed value to having it) and that the ACA was legally given a mandate by the Supreme Court.

            i’m not ignorant. I’m not a commercial spammer. Any more denials I need to issue right here and now? You just can’t get used to there being folks interested in factual and rational thought in this world. As for the commercial spammers, look to yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So basically like every other Marxist you believe all of the conspiracy theories where an illegal insurance consortium is ruining our lives. Because…rumors and “capitalism” just works that way…OK, why not sue them? You don’t need new laws to solve the problems you’re alleging.

            What makes them uniform in practice…is…the government regulations!!! Like I said a thousand times now, if these “layers” are not required by government, they’re just wasting their own profits. Are you alleging price fixing?

            See, you totally do not understand economics. It’s so far over your head. You need to start with Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations and then after you finish I’ll set you up with Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell…or someone like that. IIRC Mr. Sowell was once a true believing communist. So it might be really interesting to read his thoughts on economics.

          • Americana

            Oh, please, here you are finally putting your anti-Communist paranoia on full display! I’m not a Communist, I’m not a Marxist. But health care is something we have to figure out and we have to choose a health care system that works for the 21st century. Just because we set up insurance in the 1700s doesn’t mean that ancient format is the most appropriate format for today. Heck, it might even be better for businesses (though not for the insurance business) if we took the health care sector entirely out of the for-profit insurance model. As for your reading list, since I don’t believe in Communism, reading the diatribes of a former Communist won’t alter my thinking.

            (objectivefactsmatter) “Like I said a thousand times now, if these “layers” are not required by government, they’re just wasting their own profits. Are you alleging price fixing?”

            You’re so apoplectic, you’re not thinking straight. Who’s talking about price fixing? Who’s talking about the insurance industry “wasting their own profits”? We haven’t gone there yet as far as price-fixing in the insurance industry. What we’re talking about is a functionary within the insurance industry who ensures the largest possible cut of the insurance pie goes to the insurer and who ensures that if there are cheaper means of medical treatment, those are the option that is taken. The government didn’t add mediators to the layers of insurance company personnel. The insurance industry took the step of adding mediators between insurance agencies. The insurance industry also decided that mediators were needed in order to assure that their profit margin on medical procedures remained as high as possible so they added mediators to insurance plans. You can’t argue on behalf of the insurance industry’s “layers” while pretending that the mediators are value-added to the health care system. The only thing insurance mediators do is ensure that the profit margin being fed to the insurer remains as large as possible.

            http://www.callahan-law.com/Articles-and-Expert-Advice/Insurance-Strategies-Advocate-June-2013.pdf

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, please, here you are finally putting your anti-Communist paranoia on full display! I’m not a Communist, I’m not a Marxist. But health care is something we have to figure out…”

            We? We must intervene because because because I’m not a Marxist? Where does this imperative come from? Where!?

            “You’re so apoplectic, you’re not thinking straight. Who’s talking about price fixing?”

            I don’t know. Your accusation about the “extra layer” or “non value add” doesn’t make sense. If you can choose one offer over a competitor’s offer and they are both doing the same thing, it’s really none of your business to tell them the most efficient way. If you really know better, start your own company. Get it? How it is illicit to have some “layer” that you don’t understand or agree with? What is your allegation?

            You don’t buy things on a cost plus basis. For you to read paranoid articles about supposed inefficiencies of industries or companies that make you sad because you demand more is based on delusion and a sense of entitlement that usually in the modern world comes from Marxist economic and philosophical frameworks. Whether or not you realize it is irrelevant.

            Wait. I want automobile neutrality and social justice. This whole ancient practice of wasting wheels and tires has to go. It’s a conspiracy. Because nobody offers an affordable 3 wheeled car. We must demand this problem solved so that everyone can have a car powered by solar energy and the occasional top up on unicorn flatulence.

            I demand it because my vision is “progressive” and you just don’t have the same vision. You must be the dummy because you can’t see this 4-wheeled car conspiracy for what it is. What’s wrong with you?!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What we’re talking about is a functionary within the insurance industry who ensures the largest possible cut of the insurance pie goes to the insurer and who ensures that if there are cheaper means of medical treatment, those are the options that are taken.”

            You’re saying that they’re not altruistic bureaucrats elected by the people and therefore private industry is “undemocratic” and therefore unjust. They seek their own profit. I know. But your solution is worse. Move to North Korea or China if you want altruistic bureaucrats to replace the free market.

            Ever head the phrase “caveat emptor?” What is that supposed to mean if it’s the government’s job to chase down evil insufficiently altruistic profit makers?

            Idiots just assume that everyone is out to get them and that it’s “fair” to ask the “democratic government” to “fix it democratically.”

            But the reality is that your paranoid view of the world is at least partly the result of mendacious propaganda that you want to accept because instead of your condition being at least partly the result of your own shortcomings you can blame it on other nefarious forces.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The government didn’t add mediators to the layers of insurance company personnel. The insurance industry took the step of adding mediators between insurance agencies. ”

            Again, it’s not that pools are bad, mediators are bad, or any particular structure is bad unless it distorts empowerment and accountability. One of the most essential concepts in looking at anything that people do together in society is that empowerment and accountability should be tightly bound as possible. When you get politics involved the shift is inevitable. What you suggest is that an incompetent person such as yourself is qualified to tell insurance companies what their best practices are. It’s none of your business. You can look at the marketplace and either accept or decline offers. Affordable insurance or affordable anything else is not a right. The president lied to you again.

            If you want to point to an industry that is allegedly hurting you, you must have some basis other than your own regurgitation of memes. You have to show collusion or some kind of actionable monopoly allegation. Do you have something more than a simplistic and naive critique on their accounting practices?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “(objectivefactsmatter) “If they (insurance industry) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”(I’m still chuckling at your above sentence… Lordy!)”

            Because you’re stupid. They industry can’t add layers uniformly across separate companies coherently for the entire industry because they’d get sued unless the government required it. Whatever coherency and uniformity etc. is either subject to competitive market pressures, therefore you don’t care about the alleged layer, illegal, and the government can sue, or the government is actually requiring it. And the government is requiring a lot of it. And you like when everyone else gets screwed because you don’t see that you too (if you pay taxes or buy insurance that is over-regulated) are getting screwed too.

            OK moron? It’s you. Jeez. What else can you possibly get confused over? I mean guess I can’t assume you know anything at all.

            “The insurance industry isn’t being used because it’s been designed as the system of choice, it’s just played out this way.”

            What? So how did it succeed? You know NOTHING about economics. NOTHING. Not even the basics. ZERO. You are practically a communist if you think that market success isn’t based on choice. What you mean is that some elite didn’t choose it from the Commanding Heights (that’s a term Lenin used)?

            You’re going from neo-Marxist dupe to Social Justice Warrior fascist.

          • Americana

            What you’ve written above is NOT what your previous sentence says or is about. What your extremely funny sentence says is what I’m laughing about. No one ever mentioned “adding layers” (as if that explains what your crazy sentence says, anyway) to the present insurance company hierarchy or mentioned creating a government interface. That’s YOUR IMPOSING YOUR THOUGHTS on MY POST. Don’t do it. Obviously, you get yourself into great difficulties when you don’t take my posts at face value and interpret them AS IS. I’m not even going to move on to your other points about understanding economics or market success because it’s obvious you’ve only tossed those into the mix to salvage your reputation and mislead people as to the content in my posts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s YOUR IMPOSING YOUR THOUGHTS on MY POST. Don’t do it. Obviously, you get yourself into great difficulties when you don’t take my posts at face value and interpret them AS IS.”

            I’m trying to help you flesh out your own accusations. These are accusations I’ve heard before. Your rants don’t make sense at face value. If you can’t stand the scrutiny, don’t bother regurgitating simplistic talking points online.

            And you still never explained your accusations. Like I said before and tried to illustrate in language that you MIGHT understand:

            If private enterprise in a free market is “inefficient” according to your standards, you can choose to decline doing business with them, look for an offer at a competitor that you like, start your own enterprise as a competitor and so forth. If there is something illicit going on like a monopoly or collusion, you can sue. You don’t need to change regulations of the industry if someone is already breaking the law. If they’re not breaking the law, they are already accountable for delivering maximum value or the marketplace already has organic mechanisms to punish and pressure them in to delivering better value and higher levels of efficiency.

            If they don’t, you’re probably wrong in your unproven assertion that they are doing something inefficiently. If you have that much confidence that you are right, start your own competitive enterprise or approach them as a consultant and show them how to increase their own profits. If you do that and you’re right, they might elect to pass along savings, then their competitors will have pressure to follow suit.

            So really until you can actually prove private enterprise is inefficient you should just shut your pie hole and quit agitating like a typical communist. The only thing different between you and a revolutionary communist is that the latter openly talks about the bloodshed.

          • Americana

            Until you care to explain or understand the bizarre nature of your sentence from a few days ago, you’ve got no business calling my rants agitation.

            (OBFM) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I already explained several times. Taken out of context it might confuse some people a little. For you to remain confused is barely believable. You clearly have no idea about any of this other than what you read in leftist TPM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your confusion is evidence regarding my level of competence?

            You know what? You’re not the first to try that scam.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Unfortunately, that money that’s pooled also has an ENORMOUS AMOUNT skimmed off the top in order for the insurance industry to perform its function of collecting and allocating funds while NOT PROVIDING ANY HEALTH-RELATED BENEFIT to the equation. That’s a pretty simple capitalist analysis of what’s going on w/the three parts of health care: the patient, the health insurance agency and the medical community delivering the care.’

            I already told you that capitalism is not eliminated by socialism or communism. It’s reordered by changing property rights and personal sovereignty. It’s not more or less efficient for some layer of bureaucrats to do something just because the government does it. The reason it’s OK if private institutions have “extra layers” because if they don’t do the best job delivering value to their customers, you fire them. Whether you call it “skim” or “earned profits” makes no difference in the market. I want the best value. You don’t deliver, I go elsewhere (assuming the government hasn’t killed my choices – and they have).

            How do you fire the Federal government when it’s the only game in town and they’ve gutted everyone that had any chance of competing in the marketplace any longer? The privately held companies can’t ask for tax subsidies when they F things up. The government can sustain poor organizations as long as it also has a tax base to charge. They’re the ones that add layer after layer of stupid functions that DO NOT add value.

            It’s so weird that you put together an Orwellian defense of fascist “social justice” economics at the same time claiming you know what you’re talking about and that you reject Marxism.

          • Americana

            Well, since you write sentences like the following, I’m going to have to suggest that you’re not the reader who’s successfully interpreting the content in my posts. I mean, really, you’re going to write this following sentence and then accuse me of regurgitating talking points and blah blah. You’re hardly the one to claim a clear head and extreme intellect.

            (OBFMA) “If they (insurance companies added no value (to the health care equation) they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you’re doubling down on the idea that your confusion is my fault?

            “If they (insurance companies added no value (to the health care equation) they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

            I’ve already written the same thing 6 or 8 times. We’re discussing this illegitimate layer.

            Here it is more clearly:

            “If they (insurance companies added layers offering no value (to the health care equation) they’d be bypassed (or eliminated) unless the law required they be used.”

          • Americana

            You still don’t get where your sentence went off the rails… It’s not my misunderstanding that makes your sentence so wacko. Take the last half of the sentence as your starting point as to why your sentence is so wacko.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It only went off the rails for you because of ignorant assumptions you make about your theories and how they map out in reality. I overestimated your knowledge and comprehension of what you’re commenting on. You were never on the rails in the first place.

            You’ve only looked at simplistic maps rather than, say, a Google Earth view of the terrain. If we drill down with your views we just see nothing. And that’s the problem. You look at simplistic maps and paradigms and you think you understand what they represent. Clearly you don’t.

          • Americana

            Your Marxist and Communist condemnation of my thinking doesn’t have anything to do w/the realities of what I’ve written in these posts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Where do your controversial statist expectations come from? You’ve worked out your own theories unrelated to Marx? Go ahead and support your own unique (totally unrelated to Marxist discourse) vision for state control over anything you think is unfair. I would like to hear more rants along those lines.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re just reading articles written by partisans and regurgitating the talking points. You’re not actually addressing the criticism of these interventions and the ACA specifically.

            You’re defending Gruber and he already told you how stupid people are to accept the claims at face value. Why do you keep defending discredited talking points? Why did Gruber et al. need to hide taxation if the end bottom line result would be big savings for everyone? Nutshell game perhaps? Oh that sounds like a real winner!

            And no, when I use a question mark it doesn’t mean that I don’t have the answer already. It’s something for you to look in to.

          • Americana

            Yes, let’s all look DEEPLY into this statement by objectivefactsmatter:

            (OBFM) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • Pete

            And American breaks out her

            Maternal/matronly look down her nose at you

            “Listen, fella”

          • Americana

            Le Fin. Another set of words using ‘L’ and ‘F.’

          • Pete

            If anyone reads the post thread, they will see you giving De Doc and Objectfactsmatters the 5th degree and becoming unhinged as you argue ad infinitum.

            Then turning around and saying to me “I don’t want to argue any more, wah, wah, It hurts!”

          • Americana

            Le Fin. You think you can hurt me w/your wacko posts?

          • Americana

            Le Fin. Le Fin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Rosso —> objectivefactsmatter • 2 days ago: “Listen, fella, your first comparison is the cheapest shot you could possibly take. Instead of attempting to understand my point, which is that insurance workers don’t ADD ANYTHING to the health equation, you completely DERAIL THE CONVERSATION and CLAIM I’m referring to denigrating the TOP-TIER CAPITALISTS who are defrauding the LITTLE OLD WORKER. If I need you to falsify any documents, I’ll let you know.”

            Compagno,

            http://www.fao.Org/ag/ags/agricultural-finance-and-investment/value-chain-finance/en/

            Value chain finance

            A value chain consists of a series of activities that add value to a final product, beginning with the production, continuing with the processing or elaborating of the final product, and ending with the marketing and sale to the consumer or end user. The inter-dependent linkages of the chain and the security of a market-driven demand for the final product can provide suppliers, producers, processors and marketing companies with more secure access to procurement and sale of products. This reduces costs and risks of doing business and improves access to finance as well as other services needed by those within the value chain.

            Value chain finance is defined as the flows of funds to and among the various links within a value chain. Stated another way, it is any or all of the financial services, products and support services flowing to and/or through a value chain to address the needs and constraints of those involved in that chain, be it a need for finance, a need to secure sales, procure products, reduce risk and/or improve efficiency within the chain. Value chain finance is a comprehensive approach which looks not only at the direct borrower but rather analyzes the value chain and those within it, and their linkages in order to best structure financing according to those needs The linkages also allow financing to flow up and down the chain. For example, inputs can be provided to farmers and repaid directly from the sale of the product without having to go through a traditional loans process.

            For people that would otherwise not be able to muster funds for a large medical expense, Insurance companies add value to the market when they enable transactions that would otherwise not be possible. Over time this helps the market grow, adding diversity and “value” at lower costs than otherwise would be possible

            There is simply no question that insurance companies “add value.” When the workers smoke cigarettes, drink coffee or sell inferior products, run scams and so forth, these specific activities are either neutral or negative. Obviously. They are human. But the market will punish these imperfect souls for being more flawed and less productive, if they add less value relative to their competition they will be punished. Either they will improve or die.

            Government workers are also human. When they smoke even more cigarettes, drink even more taxpayer provided coffee and generally waste time and occasionally dream of fraud schemes on a scale that you clearly can’t imagine, the market can’t punish them. Instead, the mendacious politicians blame the taxpayers for shorting the agencies on funds and demand more funds and higher taxes. That’s the perpetual cycle that the modern TEA party is trying to bust. IOW eventually the people that pay the bills WILL fire the service providers even when they are protected by massive government bureaucracies. The problem is that the life-cycle of these scams and eventual punishment may scale over centuries rather than days, weeks months or maybe a few years as we see in free markets.

          • Pete

            “It seems like you’ve done all the right wing wacko research.”

            And now we know why Americana is here. She is the standard bearer of Light!

            “FORWARD!” – Americana

          • Americana

            Le Fin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And now we know why Americana is here. She is the standard bearer of Light!”

            Light is occasionally synonymous with delusion.

          • Pete

            She did degree from the college of business or a college of engineering or (hard) science. But she has let us know that she went to a university.

            A person’s profession and (mis)education can really colour the way they see things.

            I for one cannot see how a successful college grad (as opposed to any old college grad) would commiserate with colleagues around the water cooler about their fears for retirement. At that point I have to wonder if she is pink collar, because she did all that heavy lifting in college.

            This of course when she is not farming or hitting the keyboard. Who would have ‘thunk’ a troll would have such energy and so many jobs?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            She’s a hardcore statist and most of her wonderful ideas can be traced back to Marx’s framework and claims. Obviously she thinks socialized medicine is just fine for whatever reason and has NO CLUE of the costs even in small countries and it never occurred to her that the US is global host for all things medical. Basically every other sovereign in the world is a “client” of ours in one way or another. We fund more research both directly and by providing the most lucrative market for new patent drugs that can then be sold for a lot less to other countries. Some times they don’t even have to wait for the discount. In the worst case they benefit from the meds when the patents expire. Without our free market many of these drugs would never exist. Is that better than envying us for a few years at worst?

            What would the world be like without Western medicine or the USA?

            Sheesh. No appreciation. Just envy and mendacious victim narratives. Even from some “Americans.”

          • Pete

            I remember a blog talking about AIDS drugs in particular (it was their beef for obvious reasons) and all drugs in general. The drugs they were talking about had already been o the market for 10 or 15 years. Which means that they were going to come off patent in 5 or 10 years. I though that drugs get a 20 years patent. I could be wrong. But the patent is of limited duration.However all these socialist yahoos want to permanently break the current system for drugs that are coming off patent in a short time.

            When the drugs come off patent, the Indian drug makes will make sure they are inexpensive.

            I very much dislike people who want immediate gratification like that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Communists always think that they can remove profit motive but keep the value added by those chasing profits. They always do it. It’s such a blatant fallacy..it’ staggers the mind. And they assume we’re wrong and they’re dealing in common sense.

            http://www.fda.Gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm079031.htm

            Technically patents are in intervention. It’s a controversial statement but we have to acknowledge that protecting intellectual property rights is an intervention. It can be a stable and useful intervention. It is often up for negotiation. Small adjustments are OK. But these idiots that simply ignore the huge value of intellectual property always start with the common sense idea that property rights is theft and certainly intellectual property rights must be the biggest theft of all!

            It’s the old seen versus the unseen that they refuse to acknowledge. Like I said, they run analysis on history and act like they can achieve all of the same results even after removing profit motive.

            They’re nuts. It’s one thing for a teenager to question these things or an isolated academic that wants to challenge thinking. But it astounds me that these ideas have much currency beyond that. It shows how horribly wrong we’re getting it in our Western academies. Who in the West could fail to realize the value of protecting intellectual property rights?

            “When the drugs come off patent, the Indian drug makes will make sure they are inexpensive. I very much dislike people who want immediate gratification like that.”

            It’s fine if they want it sooner but not fine when they demand it as an entitlement. They must earn it and pull their own weight. At least try!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “She did degree from the college of business or a college of engineering or (hard) science. But she has let us know that she went to a university.”

            Standards have apparently been slipping since the dawn of the hippy age or earlier.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Revisions to our health care system also arise out of societal need.”

            Motive and competence are entirely separate issues. And balancing the needs and “rights” of one set of people against others is also a very serious matter. You don’t just get to march in to Congress and say you have a plan because, gee, look at all of the sick people the academics and “journalists” keep telling us about. We must do SOMETHING! Because…just look! We need SOME THING! That’s not a plan.

          • Americana

            If the Republicans are aware there is an issue, such as w/immigration reform or health care, as far as I’m concerned they’re obligated to come up w/a legislative plan to accomplish those aims. Health insurance “reform” might have simply come down to LEGISLATING THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES COULDN’T HAVE CAP LIMITS on specific illnesses nor COULD INSURANCE COMPANIES DROP PATIENTS WHO’D EXHAUSTED THOSE CAPS. That doesn’t exhaustively alter the face of the insurance companies but it does address the two worst points of contention.

            If there is an evident problem that has been a known obstacle for at least a decade, then it’s a problem that’s got to be solved by our legislative bodies. The industry itself doesn’t simply get to decide on its practices if those practices run counter to providing the services which it has said it would contract to provide. Banishing millions of Americans into the void of the uninsured is NOT A SOLUTION and the insurance industry SHOULD NEVER HAVE PRETENDED THAT IT WAS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Health insurance “reform” might have simply come down to LEGISLATING THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES COULDN’T HAVE CAP LIMITS on specific illnesses nor COULD INSURANCE COMPANIES DROP PATIENTS WHO’D EXHAUSTED THOSE CAPS.”

            And how specifically would they accomplish that without increasing costs? Do you want the government to subsidize the plans that are effected or do you care about that? Do you not understand that coverage is always balanced with the need to keep premium payments down? How can government interventions make something better without making something else worse (IOW help this guy by taxing the other guy and hope you don’t lose the whole transfer in the costs of governing the whole scam).

            What could be done is adjusting the tax codes. That’ not fair because it’s making the progressive tax schedule even steeper, but everything else we do will eventually come down to paying for it with taxes. Make it simple and just figure out the most direct way to help the people you want to help, stop the shell games and Ponzi schemes and just admit how much it will cost. Even if you don’t make other adjustments to the budget you haven’t planted a big time bomb for future generations. You can try to cut costs elsewhere or just let them worry about it when they’re negotiating all of the other budgets.

            The other thing the government could do is to allow cross state competition in offering insurance. Maybe there is a way to do it without unnecessarily harming states’ rights. We’ve already screwed them with the ACA but maybe if there was a plan that really did help people by increasing market competition coupled with a straightforward subsidy, that would accomplish WAY more than the ACA and not hurt much at all. Imagine how much we’ve already wasted that could have gone in to subsidies, research and so forth. And so much anxiety where so man people did not know what would happen to them for coverage or impact on the job (employers revising schedules to meet requirements or dodge mandates).

            “If there is an evident problem that has been a known obstacle for at least a decade, then it’s a problem that’s got to be solved by our legislative bodies.”

            Or accepted as part of the human condition and something that will perhaps get better later on. I totally disagree with you that there is any clear imperative to “do something” other than in terms of politics. There are just so many mendacious people and institutions out there. The government can not solve even a fraction of the problems people suppose. And THAT is why I constantly confront people that contribute to those unreasonable, unrealistic expectations. War On Poverty? War On Drugs? Social Security? How has that worked so far? If Social Security was a great program, why are we not socially secure? What’s up with that? Can you not look at history to see which government interventions worked? Of course not. There are none. They are all Ponzi schemes. And now the latest Ponzi scheme is supposed to fix problems that were caused in large part by previous Ponzi schemes. But it’s the law, so it’s legalized fraud. Imagine that!

            “The industry itself doesn’t simply get to decide on its practices if those practices run counter to providing the services which it has said it would contract to provide.”

            Holy cow. Have you even taken a single economics or business class?

            “Banishing millions of Americans into the void of the uninsured is NOT A SOLUTION and the insurance industry SHOULD NEVER HAVE PRETENDED THAT IT WAS.”

            Banishment is not acceptable? Abortion is acceptable. Asking to not pay for abortions is not acceptable because not paying for abortions is banishment? Insurance companies banish people that don’t have money to pay for the product? Does the local grocer banish you when you can’t afford the groceries? Do you know what you’re pushing here? I won’t give you any more hints. Where do you suppose your expectations come from?

            You think you have independent thoughts but you actually don’t. You’re a victim of group-think. For all the effort I put out I can’t see that you’ve learned a thing from me. Have you?

          • Americana

            If I’m a victim of group think, you’re equally a victim of group think. You just don’t want to admit it.

          • Americana

            Health insurance is a MONEY REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME. Whether you like it not, there will always have to be a redistribution of the pool money shared among all Americans to enable health care to continue as we now practice it in this country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Health insurance is a MONEY REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME.”

            OK. And?

            “Whether you like it not, there will always have to be a redistribution of the pool money shared among all Americans to enable health care to continue as we now practice it in this country.”

            Why would I care about people voluntarily pooling their money? Do you not understand the difference between coerced redistribution and free market transactions? You think the controversy is “Oh my, a pool!”

            WTF is wrong with you idiot savants that you argue with people that could be teaching you important things?

          • Americana

            I’ll state it again in case you’re a little vague on the concept. Health insurance is a MONEY REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME. If you don’t like money redistribution schemes, then drop your health insurance, drop your car insurance, drop your homeowners insurance, etc. Only then can you seriously advocate that all money redistribution schemes viz insurance are bad and that you won’t play a role in funding them.

            Your fallacious belief is that the insurance pools post-ACA aren’t “voluntary pooling of money” but they are. The only thing that has changed is that EVERYONE is allowed to voluntarily pool their money and purchase insurance w/the insurance industry not able to summarily reject individuals who’ve exhausted their benefits. Where there is coercion in the process it’s because everyone must have insurance. But since we insist on all sorts of forms of insurance, from car insurance to homeowner’s insurance, the concept of demanding that everyone have health insurance leaves me pretty blasé as far as trampling my rights.

            The fact the insurance industry decided to rejigger its premiums in order to FURTHER ITS OWN MONEY REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME makes it clear what the role of the insurance companies have always been in preventing any revision of health insurance in this country. Because regardless of whether someone is receiving health insurance through work benefits or whether someone is buying health insurance on the open market, both individuals are receiving health insurance via the same voluntary pooling of money. The only difference between pre-ACA and now is that everyone is able to buy health insurance. There may be mandated purchase of health insurance but since we’ve got mandated purchase of all sorts of insurance, I consider that basically a moot point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll state it again in case you’re a little vague on the concept. Health insurance is a MONEY REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME. If you don’t like money redistribution schemes, then drop your health insurance, drop your car insurance, drop your homeowners insurance, etc.”

            Unbelievable. I feel like I’m talking to a robot.

            I don’t like fraud and coercion. I never said that voluntary risk pooling is a bad thing. What in the heck is wrong with you? These are the kinds of things they teach in junior high school intro to economics. And I already explained to you it’s not the pooling but the coercion. I know I explained that to you some time in the last few hours.

            This is why people regard you as a spammer.

            “Your fallacious belief is that the insurance pools post-ACA aren’t “voluntary pooling of money” but they are. The only thing that has changed is that EVERYONE is allowed to voluntarily pool their money and purchase insurance w/the insurance industry not able to summarily reject individuals who’ve exhausted their benefits”

            It’s risk pooling that is coerced because there are many mandates and there are also mechanisms that allow the government to shift costs.

            “Where there is coercion in the process it’s because everyone must have insurance.”

            No shirt!

            “But since we insist on all sorts of forms of insurance, from car insurance to homeowner’s insurance, the concept of demanding that everyone have health insurance leaves me pretty blasé as far as trampling my rights.”

            OMG. It’s not just any insurance. If it was JUST saying people must go get covered, that would be less serious. But they also declared all kinds of sensible options to be “junk.” So you’d have to be an idiot to think there is no harmful coercion. I’m forced in to a pool I never wanted to be in. Not only am I forced to take care of my risks through a program (risk pool) but the government has dictated so many aspects of it that it has taken away most of the ideal choices. How would you like it if the government took over making shoes and sold them for 20% more, gave you 3 choices in color and 2 choices for size? Sure a few people would be happy because a certain class of “needy” person gets free shoes! Aand photo opps would capture their joy. Everyone else loses. Oh yeah, your taxes went up too.

            What what F’ing rights do you think you have at stake here?

            You’re not sane. I’m sorry I wasted my time. It’s one thing to be ignorant, but to be stubborn about your ignorance becomes intolerable.

            “The only difference between pre-ACA and now is that everyone is able to buy health insurance. There may be mandated purchase of health insurance but since we’ve got mandated purchase of all sorts of insurance, I consider that basically a moot point.”

            Because you’re ignorant. And your ignorant about the scope of your ignorance.

          • Doc2Go

            What societal need was there, to go from a system people came from all over the world to avail themselves of, to the same socialised medicine most of the rest of the planet is cursed with? America has LED THE WORLD in medical and related fields, both for services and for research. The Shah didn’t fly to Moscow or Havana, when he got sick.

            Making a product or service compulsory negates and twists market forces into something that they are not. Then, after the organ fails, the Socialists blame Capitalism. Here is the thing. Capitalism is not an abstract theory. It is the default economic model. Socialism is an abstract theory, that (try as they might) its adherents have never been able to make work. It runs against the default programming of human beings, and tweaks Capitalism so much as to ruin the economies of entire nations and regions. Less government interference leads to fewer problems, and a happier citizenry.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            The British system of socialized medicine is also becoming a huge money-maker for the U.K. How do you explain that if socialized medicine is such a disaster? As for the Shah not flying to Moscow or Havana when he got cancer, well, it’s pretty darn clear why he didn’t go to either of those places for treatment and it’s not just because the treatment was inferior. Those would never have been logical choices for the Shah’s medical treatment given the political situation in the Middle East. Please don’t litter your comments w/UNREALISTIC and ILLOGICAL EXAMPLES and expect me to overlook them.

            http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/24/medical-tourism-generates-millions-nhs-health

            From the above link:

            Their work, published in the open access journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) One, looks at incoming and outgoing medical tourists. Those flying in to the UK include expat Britons living in countries such as Spain which have tightened up their own rules on access to healthcare, they say.

            Some NHS hospitals earn substantial sums of money from medical tourists and others could join them in doing so, say Hanefeld and colleagues.

            They used freedom of information requests to obtain figures from 18 hospitals. Great Ormond Street children’s hospital earned £20.7m from foreign patients in 2010-11; Kings earned £7.9m and the Royal Brompton earned £7.4m.

            People from the UK travelled abroad for procedures they could not get on the NHS or where the waiting lists were too long. The study looked at those travelling for fertility treatment, bariatric surgery (to reduce the stomach size in obese patients) and cosmetic surgery.

            __________________________________________________________________________

            http://www.imtj.com/articles/2009/uk-medical-tourism-30023/

            From the above link:

            The UK has many inbound medical tourists from all over the world. How big is the market and is it changing?

            The market is growing and Harley Street relies on medical tourists for all sorts of medical procedures. According to recent figures over 67,000 people came to the UK for treatment last year and this year the figure is expected to be close to 74,000, despite the economic downturn.

            Why do people come to the UK, in particular for plastic surgery when it is surely cheaper to travel elsewhere, even in Europe?

            Patients travel to the UK because it has a worldwide reputation for high quality surgery and medical expertise. In the last few years people have started coming back here for surgery in increasing numbers, they previously felt it was too expensive but cost is not the only driver for people seeking surgery. The reputation of the UK for plastic surgery is very high internationally and people don’t think they’re being ripped off. Compared to some other destinations, we offer good value for money and more importantly high standards of clinical excellence, our facilities and doctors are well policed and everyone has liability insurance.

            Patients coming to the UK have the reassurance that all our hospitals and care facilities are full covered by the Care Quality Commission. The Care Quality Commission is an independent body that regulates health and social care services whether in the private or public sector.

            __________________________________________________________________________

            Why should capitalism not be considered an abstract theory any more than any other economic system be considered an abstract theory, at least in part? There are components in all economic models that hold true from one system to the next. The fact there have been economists who are also philosophers about the drivers of economic systems doesn’t change the recognition of those more philosophical elements existing within each system, whether it be Capitalism or another system.

          • Doc2Go

            “Please don’t litter your comments w/UNREALISTIC and ILLOGICAL EXAMPLES and expect me to overlook them.”

            Do not yell at me. I am listening. The example of the Shah was given as an absurdity to show how how illogical that course of action would have been…solely on the basis of quality of care…nothing else. Promoting socialised medicine in America, using the UK as your example, denies the societal and financial malaise of Britain since the Second World War. That only deepened with the adoption of socialised medicine (NH). The average Briton who is old enough to have seen the difference firsthand would argue with you, about the supposed “benefits” of Socialism.

            -Doc

          • Doc2Go

            “I don’t see Communist infiltration being behind the shift in policy positions in the Democratic party.”

            Just because you do not see it, does not mean that it isn’t there. There is too much documented evidence of CPUSA infiltrating, influencing, and eventually hijacking the DP whole. Read what McCarthy was trying to warn us about. Their intentions, their plan, their methodology. Can you even stand to read it? Everything they outlined (in 1952) as a goal has been achieved in the last seven years. It isn’t conspiracy theory. It is factual explanation of a real fifth column conspiracy…which really did occur.

            The fact that you would marginalise anyone who has read what is documented history indicates that you were unwilling to read the reports, could not believe the reports, or have a vested interest in other people not believing the reports. My question in all three cases would be “Why?” What are your motives, in minimising facts? Do you appreciate the Manchurian candidate in particular? Or, are you so starry-eyed in love with Socialism as to not look on its history?

            -Doc

          • Americana

            It’s not that I don’t read such reports. It’s that I don’t believe the conspiracy theories unless they come presented w/actual facts. Sure, there may be some Communists among Democrats. There are far too few for those Communists to be shifting the Democratic platform in the Communist/Socialist direction just because there may be a few Communists pushing their agenda behind the scenes. If the Communists and Socialists were making any real headway in the U.S., their parties would be growing. They’re NOT. If the Democrats are moving in any direction, it’s because they see that other countries in the world have successfully followed X-Y-Z programs and they want to see similar programs in the U.S. Sen. McCarthy was proven wrong more often than he was proven right. The fact you bring up Sen. McCarthy tells me that you’re not reading the contemporary political landscape for what it is.

            As for me minimizing facts, I don’t minimize facts. I wish to minimize conspiracy theories that don’t rely on documented facts. I especially find conspiracy theorists who don’t bring facts to the table to be highly suspicious. Don’t go there w/your last sentence and, once again, try to disseminate the usual assumptions about me being “so starry-eyed in love w/Socialism as to not look at its history,” because there’s plenty to look at in Socialist history that makes for reasonable political decisions. We’re not talking about purges and prison camps, we’re talking reasonable policy decisions that have nothing to do w/undermining a country but building up a country.

          • Doc2Go

            “Sure, there may be some Communists among Democrats. There are far too few for those Communists to be shifting the Democratic platform in the Communist/Socialist direction just because there may be a few Communists pushing their agenda behind the scenes.”

            Not so. Their name may as well be Legion. In addition to that fact, all it really takes is one, if that one is at the head of the party. Frank Marshall Davis was BHO’s mentor, since he was about eleven years old. Davis was a mouthpiece for CPUSA. I don’t view that with optimistic naivete, and dismiss it as coincidental. Read the Congressional Record. It is chock full of the facts (and testimony) you purport to seek, and is a matter of public record. The facts start to appear, there, in the 1930′s, and really begin to pile up from 1946 on. Read it.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            No, that’s not “all it takes” is ONE INDIVIDUAL to convert the pursuit of a Democratic platform into a Socialist/Communist platform. The Chicago Star also had Rockwell Kent, an American artist on its board. Was he a card-carrying Communist because he wished for a NON-NUCLEAR WORLD? Don’t be so simplistic in your evaluations as to why some Americans might have endorsed a Soviet-American friendship pact and so on in the years during and after WW II when it became increasingly obvious that the West would be pitted against the Communist East.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_Kent

          • Doc2Go

            Once the DNC stage is already set by his comrades in the fifth column (who are numerous, powerful, connected, and well financed), it DOES only take one. By incrementalism over sixty years, the stage was set. Socialists in the DP are not a tiny minority, as you assert. By the rudder is the ship of state directed leftward, into the path of an iceberg.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            (DELETED) There will NEVER BE one individual capable of steering the U.S. into the path of an iceberg. There will always be far more Americans aware of the iceberg and the reasons for the iceberg being in our path than you are acknowledging in your post. The reasons for certain sectors of the American populace to attempt to describe any and all of these latest initiatives as Socialist and Communist are too many to mention. The reality is, these initiatives are not necessarily being brought forward at this point in time to further any Socialist or Communist agenda but rather because they are suitable tactically to help the U.S. pass through this particular historical bottleneck of world economic history.

            There is no way the U.S. can isolate itself from the economic effects of the development of the Third World. No trade pacts can spare us all these effects, no planning can spare us all these effects, nothing the U.S. can do can spare the ENTIRE COUNTRY from the historical effects of this period. However, together, we can select among our various options and hope to weather the present circumstances as best we can. We are no longer the sole possessor of great economic and industrial might. We are one among many and we must maintain our economy to the best of our knowledge and by whatever means we have at our disposal.

          • Doc2Go

            “There will always be far more Americans aware of the iceberg and the reasons for the iceberg being in our path than you are acknowledging in your post.”

            To what end? We have all been keenly aware of PotUS drawing America leftward, in accordance with his beliefs. We have opposed it passionately, vociferously, and to no avail. Where do you think Gruber gets his disdain for the American voter? The very same ideology. How is it that PotUS can do whatever he wants? Because the franchise media spins cover for him, belittles (or ignores) his opposition, and promotes his mendacity with a simulated stamp of consensus.

            “The reality is, these initiatives are not necessarily being brought forward at this point in time to further any Socialist or Communist agenda but rather because they are suitable tactically to help the U.S. pass through this particular historical bottleneck of world economic history.”

            Um…Yes, they are. Read more. It is all out there, to prove it. Take a Skeptic’s honest journey through the historical data, documents, and testimony. The initiatives are inherently Socialism (which leads to terminal Communism) and are not suitable (tactically, or in any other sense) to help America do anything. They are designed to bring America and all free markets to their knees. Passing through an economic bottleneck in history (if it is, in fact, doing anything of the kind) is not sufficient impetus to jettison personal action or responsibility, in favour of magical thinking from “expert” central planners. By whatever means possible… Indeed. That is bollocks.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Oh, please, now you’re equating an individual’s assessment of the American voter and you’re going to equate that assessment w/the existence of a Communist/Socialist putsch in the U.S.? Sorry, but the man does have a point. As for his rationale as to why the ACA was undertaken as it was, that was because there would have been no ACA without the concessions to the American insurance industry. These are now the facts about the ACA that are now being used against the ACA. The ACA is the American insurance industry in its current incarnation.

            I always have a skeptic’s view. And if you don’t understand that this time period is NOT a bottleneck in American economic history then either you’re one of the most optimistic capitalists I’ve ever spoken with or you’ve got a philosophical axe to grind that isn’t willing to address the rise of the remaining countries in the world. The economic rise of those remaining Third World countries is working against the developed economic might of the U.S. This isn’t economic information that arises from any philosophical viewpoint, this is straightforward information about the shift in the world’s economic balance.

          • Doc2Go

            “Oh, please, now you’re equating an individual’s assessment of the American voter and you’re going to equate that assessment w/the existence of a Communist/Socialist putsch in the U.S.?”

            I am not equating anything with anything. I mention it as an observable symptom of the disease. Socialism is a disease, which leads to terminal Communism. The ACA (ObamaCare) is Socialism. America doesn’t want it, much less need it. Using its existence as an excuse for the comprehensive mendacity used to bring it into effect is intellectually disingenuous, at best…anti-American, at worst.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            No. Socialism is not a disease any more than Capiltalism is a disease. America most certainly did need an intervention in the health insurance industry unless you’d prefer to simply ignore the millions of Americans who’d been thrown off the insurance rolls. What if we’d continued to allow this health insurance industry practice of winnowing out the chronically ill to carry on? What if we’d allowed the industry to expand the numbers of Americans spit out by the insurance industry as the American population faced major chronic illnesses that would have placed many Americans on the non-insurable rolls and if this process of elimination of them from the insurance rolls continued into the next 50 years? What’s your expectation of how that would have played out? I’m interested in your specific response to that question.

          • Doc2Go

            Yes, Socialism is a disease. Capitalism is a vital organ. America needed an intervention? I disagree.

            “…to simply ignore the millions of Americans who’d been thrown off the insurance rolls”

            Sure. Why not? It isn’t any kind of an emergency. Taxpayers pick up the bill for all kinds of care that are given to people, under the old system, anyway. If that is the problem, then having Socialists hijack 1/5 of the American economy, to concentrate power in the hands of demonstrably incompetent “experts” twice removed from the doctors seems an odd way to address it. So, if that isn’t the reason, what would the ulterior motive(s) be? Socialised medicine, and a cradle to grave entitlement to be dependent on government for perpetuity. I say “No.”

            -Doc

          • Americana

            It is an emergency to have millions of Americans thrown off the insurance rolls. It would have become far more of an emergency as time went on. It also would have enabled the insurance industry to continue to pursue unethical business practices into the foreseeable future. That’s strange that you’d suggest that “…concentrating power in the hands of demonstrably incompetent “experts” twice removed from the doctors seems an odd way to address it” is especially an odd response from you considering that is the methodology of mediators that’s in use right now.

          • Doc2Go

            Why is that an emergency (if it was true, in the first place)? I was referring to the self-described “experts” (e.g. Socialists) in Washington, D.C. Everything is political.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            You must not know any of those who’ve been thrown off the insurance rolls, then. Over 48 MILLION Americans were uninsured prior to the ACA. As for you pretending that there could be a vast Socialist conspiracy cooking all the health insurance facts, there’d have to be far too many functionaries cooking the books to carry that kind of conspiracy off. Also, thousands of hospitals wouldn’t be complaining about having to pay for uninsured people showing up in their emergency rooms. This would also be true of doctors. On and on, the facts are against you. There were over 48 million uninsured Americans out of a population of approximately 320 million. (That wasn’t a very good coverage ratio.)
            __________________________________________________________________________

            http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/uninsuredintheus/ib.cfm

            The percentage of individuals without health insurance in 2011 decreased to 15.7% from 16.3% percent in 2010 (Figure 2).

            The estimated number of people without health insurance in 2011 was 48.61 million. This is a decrease of 1.34 million from the estimated 49.95 million in 2010.

            The Census Bureau released data on health insurance coverage and the uninsured for 2011 on September 12, 2012. Although there are four major government surveys that produce estimates of health insurance coverage, the Current Population Survey (CPS) is the most widely cited and receives national media attention. The percentage of people without health insurance in 2011 decreased from 2010. In 2011, the percentage was 15.7%, compared to 16.3% in 2010. During 2011, an estimated 48.61 million people were without insurance, a statistically significant decrease of 1.34 million from the estimated 49.95 million uninsured in 2010. Young adults (19-25) were the age group that experienced the greatest decline in the percentage without insurance over the past year, from 29.8% in 2010 to 27.7% in 2011. For the first time in the last 10 years, the rate of private insurance coverage did not decline in 2011. Employer-sponsored insurance continues to be the largest source of health insurance coverage in 2011, covering 55.1% of the population, which was not statistically different from 2010. The percentage of children under age 18 without health insurance in 2011 was 9.4%, stable from 2010. The uninsured rate for children has decreased significantly from 12.0% in 1999, when the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was beginning to be implemented.

            http://www.nytimes.com/news/affordable-care-act/?_r=0

          • Doc2Go

            “That wasn’t a very good coverage ratio.”

            So you say. So what? What am I, if I disagree with your assessment? It isn’t the government’s place to determine rates of coverage…ever. It is none of their damned business. The statistics (as you well know) can tell whatever story you would like them to. The NYT isn’t exactly a paragon of impartiality, that IS something that I can count on. You have ignored me, every time I have said that the fifth column has had sixty to seventy years to implement their plans…by whatever methods they deem necessary. It need not be a vast Left wing conspiracy…but, it doesn’t hurt my assertions one bit that there is and has been. Next!

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Perhaps it isn’t “any of their damned business” but it’s definitely of interest to all of us citizens and I’m all for an analysis of the true facts of the situation. As for The New York Times not being a bastion of impartiality, unfortunately for you, FACTS ARE IMPARTIAL. The Census discovered that nearly 49 million Americans are without health insurance. Now from that, it’s possible to arrive at several questions about the state of health insurance across the U.S. and, from that information, it’s possible to decide whether or not our country had arrived at a point when there must be NEW ETHICAL STANDARDS ENFORCED FOR THE INDUSTRY. Just like every other industry where standards have had to be enforced by other than within the industry itself because the industry DIDN’T SELF-POLICE ITSELF.

            As for you ending on your Fifth Column note all over again on the subject of American health insurance industry, I’d respond to that that the insurance industry has had 60 or 70 years to implement their plans without any interference from the government and look where they’ve taken the health insurance industry! Barring people from getting affordable health insurance is not the way to success for any modern country although it may be the way to success for an industry.

          • Doc2Go

            It pains me, to tell you–again–to stop yelling. My patience is wearing thin. I am not in the military any longer, and you have precisely no call to be yelling at me.

            Facts may well be impartial, but the NYT isn’t. New ethical standards were needed to avert this supposed catastrophe? Why? So that insurance premiums could treble, and then rise for the foreseeable future? So that government could interpose itself between myself and my doctor? That kind of emergency w o u l d be amazing to watch. I would bring popcorn and a lawn chair.

            Blather, working up into a lather, serves no purpose. There were no exigent circumstances then, but there sure seem to be, now. If insurance is a lousy business proposition, then people won’t buy it. Eventually, the companies would have to change their rates and model, to regain profitability. In real life, though, the government regulates everything, the insurance companies have never allowed themselves to approach insolvency…indeed, they never even risked it.

            The government is so monumentally incompetent, why would anyone (other than a treasonous Socialist) look to it, for The Answer. They didn’t. This enormously unpopular programme has all of the potential to ruin America, and roughly nil probability of helping patients.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I will emphasize words w/all caps as I see fit. You choose to throw Socialist Democrats into every post at least a half dozen times and that pains me equally. You don’t see me requesting you to cool it on the Socialist Democrat stuff. Suck it up. Stay Calm and Carry On. And stop pretending that you’re justified in your attitude toward me or I’ll replicate your attitude in my posts and we’ll see how you like it.

            As for your latest equivocation about “giving the health insurance industry time to change” by Americans refusing to buy their products because it’s a lousy purchase that provided lousy coverage, that might be feasible to do for, say, cereal companies, where you could switch to oatmeal from Corn Chex if they went GMO w/their corn but health insurance isn’t a give it up and wait and see product. One has to have health insurance for the vicissitudes and risks of life.

            You forget, the Affordable Care Act program was designed by the American insurance industry by its own lobbyists. That’s about as close as you’re going to get to claiming the government of the U.S. designed the Affordable Care Act. If there are flaws in the ACA, those flaws were fashioned and introduced by the insurance industry itself. You’ve gotta wonder why… Well, the answer is that the insurance industry wasn’t going to risk having its profits lowered by having to pay out for the additional 49 million Americans they’d refused to cover previously. That’s no surprise but it’s a surprise that no one in the Obama administration picked up on the astronomical increase in premiums for some sectors of the U.S. population and found a way to head off the insurance companies from doing this. However, since we are facing an industry power struggle, it was always a foregone conclusion that something like this would happen. If the Republicans change this, it will be very interesting to see HOW and WHAT they change it to. Will it reflect your sentiment, that “health insurance is not a basic human right” or will it reflect the realities of the U.S. being among the top tier of nations in the industrialized world and the U.S. doesn’t have mandated national health care?

          • Doc2Go

            Future success of anything cannot be mandated by government. Out of one side of your mouth, you claim the InsCo’s wrote Obamacare, and out of the other, you say that only government can fix it. The bloated bureaucracies, where money cannot even be accounted for doesn’t worry you at all, because The Fed will simply print more. And so it goes, until real inflation occurs, and Americans are required to pay four digit grocery bills with their bank cards.

            Government has no business propagating entirely new and dubious bureaucratic agencies out of thin air. They don’t. What is it going to take, to get that into your thickened frontal plate? How about this, instead: I will manage my life, you will manage yours, and the Republic will manage no one’s.

            Vacation in Venezuela, in a t-shirt that says “USA”. Then, you can tell us all of your wonderful firsthand experiences with Real Socialised Medicine.

            Bloody, bloody busybodies.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            You must own an insurance agency.

          • Doc2Go

            Ja, Sherlock. You’ve caught me. Sharpening my actuarial tables, as we speak. Next!

            -Doc

          • Doc2Go

            “One has to have health insurance for the vicissitudes and risks of life.”

            Really? What did mankind do, before the birth and education of the first insurance agent? I don’t want government of any kind, at any level, interfering with that space between myself and my doctor. Judging by the 2014 midterm election results, I am not alone in that sentiment. Incidentally, relying on figures from USC, HHS, or InsCo’s come with equal risks. They are fraught with inconsistencies that cannot be explained away by any margin of error. My point was that there was no public safety exigency sufficient to strip you of your right to not buy something…anything. The monstrosity relies on mandates full of sticks, ready to beat you, for noncompliance. I would rebel.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Then I must believe that you do not have car insurance nor do you have homeowner’s insurance nor any form of insurance because most forms of insurance are legally demanded by government entities, whether at the state or national level.

            Buying actual durable goods, sure, the government can’t order you to buy a washing machine or a car or anything else. But insurance is a different issue entirely. Even the Supreme Court demurred on this point although they worded their reasoning differently.

          • Doc2Go

            What forms of insurance I agree to engage are between me and my InsCo, and have never been any of your damned business, Mate. I will concede that for those forms mandated, it does feel like government -sanctioned extortion, though. That might be my main impetus to advise all who can to rebel against it.

            You can call it what you like, but Socialism and government busybodies are Socialism and government busybodies.
            I’ve my fill of it, so far. No thank you.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Ah, so your total insurance profile is none of my damned business since knowing what you have for insurance would UNDERMINE your case if you did have such insurance. Enough said.

            There can’t be enough said about government busybodies who realize when it’s time for their government to do what’s got to be done. Just because we’ve allowed the insurance industry to run rampant for a few decades doesn’t mean that we continue to let it do so.

            As for me, I’m not betting on the insurance industry, I’m putting my bets on individuals who figure out innovative ways to bring down costs of medicine like the woman who invented the Theranos technology.

            http://www.theranos.com

          • Doc2Go

            “Ah, so your total insurance profile is none of my damned business since knowing what you have for insurance would UNDERMINE your case if you did have such insurance.”

            No, it is actually much simpler, and less malevolent:
            It is none of your damned business.

            “There can’t be enough said about government busybodies who realize when it’s time for their government to do what’s got to be done. ”

            Comparing what states legislate for their residents is different than Socialised medicine, mandated by a heavy-handed federal bureaucracy. You still have not demonstrated a need for there to be anything done…far and away much less so for the federal government to be the one doing it.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Ah, so if you agree that states can legislate for their residents then there really should be no difference from a larger political legislating things for the nation’s residents then? The evidence that some entity other than the insurance industry had to undertake the task of reforming health insurance is clear from the fact the insurance industry didn’t undertake to reform itself. The industry has known for YEARS that it’s been in the crosshairs for unethical practices and it did nothing.

            As for your not sharing your insurance situation w/us, that’s fine. We all know that if you own a house, you’ve got homeowners insurance. And, if you own a car, you’ve got car insurance and liability insurance. And so on and so on…

          • Doc2Go

            “…there really should be no difference from a larger political legislating things for the nation’s residents then?”

            Um…No. America is a Constitutional Representative Republic. In that Constitution, rights not specifically assigned to the federal government are accorded to the individual citizen, and his or her state. This is cunningly devised to prevent some busybody unaccomplished, self-proclaimed “expert” in Washington D.C. from telling someone in Bismarck, SD what they must or must not do.

            “The evidence that some entity other than the insurance industry had to undertake the task of reforming health insurance is clear from the fact the insurance industry didn’t undertake to reform itself. The industry has known for YEARS that it’s been in the crosshairs for unethical practices and it did nothing.”

            It didn’t undertake to reform itself, because it was already tightly regulated (by law), and there was no profit motive to do so. As for being “in the crosshairs” for unethical practises: Whose crosshairs? Liberal Democrat Socialists? For the crime of turning a profit? For being non-Marxist? For being owned and run by some old, white males? When there is no violation of law, Democrats demonise whole industries, when it suits them, as being “unethical”. Their own wholesale lack of ethics are routinely ignored. The result is stunningly hypocritical, and blatantly obvious to anyone not on the Left.

            In spite of your prying, I owe you nothing, by way of describing what forms of insurance I subscribe to. Suffice it to say, that I rebel against things that are made compulsory, where I legally have the option.
            I am not going to describe them, so quit bemoaning it.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I’m not bemoaning your lack of being forthcoming about your forms of insurance you’ve taken out, but, if you’re legally compliant you’ve likely got homeowner’s insurance (unless you own your home outright by this point in time and you care to risk losing your investment if there were a disaster that totaled the house) and you likely also have car insurance for the same reasons. So, insurance is for those who don’t own everything outright and are using someone else’s money to achieve home ownership or mobility or whatever, a boat, a motorcycle in addition to a car…etc. As for the insurance industry being tightly regulated and there was therefore no profit motive to instigate reform, the profit motive should not be the only driver for reform. Of course, it’s tightly regulated but there is a constant pressure to revise one’s business prospectus upward. Insurance is no different. The rise in insurance premiums is one of the drivers of higher medical costs. Now that the ACA has been implemented, that profit growth factor driving premiums is far more obvious to the general public who are reading about the ins and out perhaps for the first time.

            The crime that was perpetrated against me w/my car accident WAS A CRIME. That was outright FRAUD and the judge who handled my case in Small Claims agreed that it was fraud and encouraged me to pursue a larger case. It was also poor and unethical business practice. But if this sort of misrepresentation of circumstances were not a common practice among insurance agencies, there wouldn’t be quite so many stories like mine where there were outright lies and disinformation being told to me by my agent who didn’t want to make a full disbursement out of HIS agency’s money. By claiming that I’d been the one to cause the accident by “slamming on my brakes” and telling me that I’d HAVE TO ASSUME a PERCENTAGE OF THE BLAME for the accident, the agent would not only have been able to pursue the other agency and been off the hook for some of the repair money but he’d also have been in a position to be able to jack my insurance premiums through the roof. I still to this day don’t have any accidents on my record, no thanks to that particular insurance agent. Now health insurance has different issues from car insurance but the same unprincipled behavior is shown in both categories of insurance. Does that mean all insurance companies are totally unprincipled? No, but the adversarial profit motive is always at work.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “(unless you own your home outright by this point in time and you care to risk losing your investment if there were a disaster that totaled the house)”

            Oh my gorsh, you’re brilliant! Who could have figured that out without your help! So insurance is about managing financial risks?

            Wow!

            “So, insurance is for those who don’t own everything outright and are using someone else’s money to achieve home ownership or mobility or whatever, a boat, a motorcycle in addition to a car…etc.”

            Oh. I see.

            “As for the insurance industry being tightly regulated and there was therefore no profit motive to instigate reform, the profit motive should not be the only driver for reform.”

            So we’re talking about managing financial risks. You think that reformation is not about optimizing performance according to those invested in those risks and profits? But wait, you’re not vested in their success so why do you butt in? Oh, you want something for nothing but it’s your “right” under the constitutional “happiness” clause?

            Oh, OK…

          • Americana

            (((OFM, such witticisms from you! CHARMING!!)))

          • Americana

            Aren’t you just a doctorateandahalf of superficial brilliance! All SMARM and NO SMARTS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Superficial brilliance like explaining why people sign insurance contracts.

            If only I could explain the Constitutional “happiness” clause. That’s over my head. We need the bigmouth bullshitting communists to explain what that “really” means.

          • DrBob123

            Well said !!

          • Doc2Go

            Thank you, Sir.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Comparing what states legislate for their residents is different than Socialised medicine, mandated by a heavy-handed federal bureaucracy. You still have not demonstrated a need for there to be anything done…far and away much less so for the federal government to be the one doing it.”

            Excellent point that I usually forget to make.

          • Americana

            Yes, everything is political if you’re wearing those special lenses. Sometimes, things like health care are relevant to how the U.S. is compared to the rest of the world. Being able to shop at Nordstrom’s every day of the week can sometimes be seen as paling in comparison w/having access to health care.

          • Doc2Go

            Whether you wear special lenses or not, the information is available, for review. Whether you wear the special lenses or not, does not change whether everything is political or not. There is no comparison, between America and the rest of the world. Stop obsessing about comparing statistics with other countries. Have you ever heard about the goings on in the Second World? I haven’t. There is the First World, and the Third World.

            Having access to healthcare is not a right. Get over it.

            -Doc

            P.S.: Nordstrom’s? Really? Are you going to ply me next, with tales of Western Decadence, and Yankee Imperialist Dogs? Fair play to you, Mr. Wizard.

          • Americana

            Not at all, I’m just following your lead about how to abstract an argument into meaningless nothingness but yet bring in all one’s favorite things. Stop comparing America w/the rest of the world? Are you kidding, that’s half the argument whichever side you are on for any subject.

            Having access to health care must be a right of a kind, otherwise all modern nations wouldn’t contend w/trying to achieve it for their populations. Having health care must be a right of a kind otherwise all modern nations wouldn’t struggle w/their budgets attempting to achieve it, whatever format their national health care takes. Besides, having health care universally available seems to be a practical thing to have to assure the maximum migration ability for a population to enable workers to follow jobs from one region to the next. It also seems an appropriate thing for a country to consider when so many small- and medium-sized companies are considering dropping health care from their benefit plans.

          • Doc2Go

            No, it isn’t a right, of any kind. We all die, someday. No one makes it out, alive. The fact that America is one of the last nations to fall under the false promise/magical spell thinking about Socialised medicine should tell you a few things about American exceptionalism…but, you would have to be listening, for it to tell you anything.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go 2 days ago: “Americana Doc2Go 2 days ago

            Yes, everything is political if you’re wearing those special lenses. Sometimes, things like health care are relevant to how the U.S. is compared to the rest of the world. Being able to shop at Nordstrom’s every day of the week can sometimes be seen as paling in comparison w/having access to health care.”

            po·lit·i·cal

            pəˈlidək(ə)l/

            adjective

            of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

            “a period of political and economic stability”

            synonyms:governmental, government, constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary,diplomatic, legislative, administrative, bureaucratic; More

            of or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.

            “a decision taken for purely political reasons”

            synonyms:politically active, party…

            interested in or active in politics.

            “I’m not very political”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I finally found most of our comments.

            You want to know something? Americana Rosso has been whining for a long time about moderators and in the past few days I’ve been “moderated” a bunch of times only when I talk to her.

            Weird. I guess some people don’t like it when I pick on her.

          • Doc2Go

            Ja. I have had my (first ever) comment deletions, here and at WE, yesterday and Saturday. In neither case was anything punted for being offensive or even particularly mean. I cannot account for it, but didn’t want to whine about it, like Mz. Rosso. At WE, there was a definite left turn, in the moderation. At FPM, it seemed more random, and in the fashion of an aggressive purge…as though to free up a lot of space, with a cool new toy.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Weird too – it was right when we were talking about how paranoid the “dissenters” were about getting moderated. And then out of the blue I lose like 3 or 4 when I’m talking to them.

            Weird stuff.

          • Doc2Go

            True. As inexplicable and implacable as the moderation appears to be, I have given a hard enough time to those who have whined about it, that I really cannot complain too much, without seeming hypocritical…I think. That is all assuming the comments are being deleted by a live person, as opposed to some AutoFlush routine or programme.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Totally agreed. I just think it’s funny. Besides, I have enough comments on the boards that they have their work cut out for them if they really want to keep me quiet:>)

          • Americana

            What a bunch of liars. You’ve suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous moderators! That’ll be the day… But, sure, give it the good ole propaganda try and pretend that moderation is happening to your posts…

            If the posts were disappearing in relation to someone’s HANDLE vs their posts’ CONTENT, it would be possible to believe that automated moderation would be the problem. Considering posts are missing that are WELL REASONED and FULL OF CITATIONS, it’s far, far more likely that HUMAN MODERATORS have judged the content deleterious to their advocacy of an issue.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            I get moderated when I talk to you. I assume that is because someone complains.

            Human moderators only get involved to review certain trigger words or when someone complains.

            Crazy people like you are best handled by ignoring them. Until you accept your need for medical interventions you won’t be worth spending much (if any) time trying to reason with.

          • Americana

            Hahahaha, you get/got moderated when you reply/ied to me???? That’ll be the day. I only ever have complained within threads about extremely long and carefully detailed posts of mine that were never approved for being posted, likely because they contained material that is judged too contradictory of the party line on here. Now that is moderating that doesn’t meet the standards of a free press. Since this site is an advocacy site, that’s to be somewhat expected. I’m still shocked at the blatant attempt to shape public opinion though since, for me, facts will always trump partisanship.

            There is no direct route to complain to human moderators through the disqus platform. If you write to the writer of a column, they are the human moderators who intervene. Why you would think I’d write to an advocacy columnist asking them to stop moderating me so that they would allow my posts to appear that are contradictory of their perspective is pretty darn funny!!! The WRITERS of this web site DEFEND ONLY THEIR OWN ADVOCACY VIEWPOINT and they willingly participate in creating a PARTISAN ADVOCACY environment by deleting contradictory posts by contradictory posters (depending on what one is writing, of course). So pretending that someone like me would write to complain to Caroline Glick or Daniel Greenfield for mercy so their posts would appear is crazy thinking. Complaining to them isn’t liable to do anything other than trigger those writers w/moderator skills to pay attention to particular discussions and consequently ELIMINATE DISSENTING OPINIONS like mine. This is precisely why some of the writers have taken on moderating their own columns. Nice try at pretending that you’ve been moderated because of me beotching and moaning. I only beotch and moan within the threads so everyone knows what’s going on behind the scenes. But you’ve struck just the right outraged tone to nearly sound credible…

            You’ve got one choice on here as to moderating which is to MARK POSTS AS SPAM, a tactic that was LIBERALLY USED AGAINST ME a week or two ago after I’d posted very similar posts for 4 days in a row and they were all held in ‘PENDING’ mode for all that time. They were well researched, thorough posts but they were allowed to remain in ‘PENDING’ mode for days in hopes that I’d leave the discussion. I didn’t and eventually they were allowed through only to then be marked as spam. That’s about as slimy as one can get.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 17 minutes ago: “Hahahaha, you get/got moderated when you reply/ied to me???? That’ll be the day.”

            Dumbass,

            It happens every day when you’re around. It happens on replies to you. Just coincidence I suppose or someone feels sorry for you and complains. That’s life in the big city.

            “There is no direct route to complain to human moderators through the disqus platform.”

            Dumbass,

            Your complaint are routed to the site owner, not disqus.

            “You’ve got one choice on here as to moderating which is to MARK POSTS AS SPAM, a tactic that was LIBERALLY USED AGAINST ME a week or two ago after I’d posted very similar posts for 4 days in a row and they were all held in ‘PENDING’ mode for all that time.”

            Dumbass,

            I don’t doubt people get sick of you. Apparently the same people use this tactic against me but only when talking to you. What’s the common denominator here?

            “The WRITERS of this web site DEFEND ONLY THEIR OWN ADVOCACY VIEWPOINT”

            No, lots of dissent is allowed. Annoying spammers (even noncommercial spammers like you) eventually piss people off who then complain. Your “dissent” is just massive doses of circular logic aped from “explanatory journalists” that spin the Marxist worldview and you lap it up like any other good dupe.

            You’re trying to filibuster the this discussion forum with repetitive neo-Marxist POV and people get sick of it. I personally never vote down nor to I report spam of any kind. The common denominator in the spam reporting is you. And you’re not “dangerous.” You’re annoying and disruptive.

            You’re not very responsive to democratic verdicts.

          • Americana

            It doesn’t happen thanks to me. Perhaps it’s the total quantity of your posts gumming up the works. After all, your ratio of posts is roughly something like 6 of yours to 1 of mine. But sure, try to be a drama queen and pretend that suddenly moderating is taking on a more dispassionate tone here on an advocacy publication site and that someone like yourself who INVARIABLY ECHOES the party line in every post would be persecuted whereas someone like me who (according to you is a “communist”) has her posts ushered through w/no interdiction. The fact I’ve got proven episodes of interdiction by several different writers on FPM and other sites clearly outweighs the surreal possibility of your posts being trashed because they’re too controversial and they don’t agree w/the party line. I’d reduce your total number of knucklehead posts and see what happens. Perhaps just reducing your junk spamming would help grease the works.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re the one whining about being persecuted by moderators. I’m pointing out that it happens to everyone in proximity to you. Because you drone on and on.

            I accept that people will complain and it’s their right to do so.

          • Americana

            No, you tried to imply that I’d complained directly to moderators and therefore you’ve run afoul of moderation because of actions I’ve taken. That’s NOT LIKELY to be the case because this is an advocacy site and you are selling what their advocacy is selling. I’m the outlier w/her opinions that don’t agree w/the party line and I’m obviously paying the price when I’ve had umpteen long and extremely detailed posts held for days in ‘PENDING’ mode. If this had been happening to you throughout your long and storied history on FPM or any of the other sites, you would have complained about the moderation long before now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 41 minutes ago: “Hahahaha…

            “But I got moderated!!!”

            http://img.photobucket.Com/albums/v374/scbikesrider/whomonkeyingcares.jpg

          • Americana

            Oh, if moderation doesn’t matter when it happens to me then why should it matter when it happens to you? You do realize that, once again, you’re shooting yourself in the foot by having made a huge brouhaha of trying to pretend you’ve been heavily redacted and moderated and that it’s all because of me and, yet, here you are saying it doesn’t matter?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I didn’t say that it matters when it happens to me other than pointing out that it’s not necessarily you they’re targeting for personal reasons or for the other reasons you suggest. I’m pointing out why people complain. Whether it’s you seeking revenge or the same people that object to you also object to me encouraging you is not relevant to the point that you are extremely annoying, disruptive and counterproductive according to the dominant view of the forum members.

          • Americana

            My approach is to simply persist on continuing to post. If sites truly wish to foster legitimate freedom of speech then they don’t exclude people like me from being in the conversation. As for people “objecting to you encouraging me”, and that’s why you’re (claiming) you’re suffering from moderator interdiction of your posts, that’s quite a ridiculous assertion. I could see moderators taking you aside and coaching you on better debate strategies but interdiction of your posts when you’re shilling for them? Not very likely. At all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My approach is to simply persist on continuing to post.”

            You want to promote a dissenting view (with respect to the local audience) and have the last word even when people have indicated they don’t care to hear your repetition. And not only that, you’re presenting the dominant globalist view at a forum for people that want to express dissent with respect to the current administration and his party. So you’re using this theory of how dissent needs to be respected as an excuse to use globalist narratives to >discourage dissent.feel< is right? Happiness clause again?

            You're delusional. There are plenty of places where your views are aired and it is YOU that wants to "filibuster" legitimate dissent.

          • Americana

            I’m not using globalist narratives. You’re the one who’s claiming that I’m spouting globalist narratives. As for who’s spouting the identical material in post after post, you’re the one who’s far more guilty of that than I am. You also continue to repeat the same slurs from one post to the next. You’re either not terribly imaginative or you’re being handed a script and you’re too lazy to personalize it. As for unearned respect, you’re the one who’s constantly telling people “to shut up and listen to your betters” (as if you’re actually my better in ANY SPHERE, whether that be economics or military or whatever… GAH) even when you’re confronted w/folks who are invariably more educated in subjects than you are. Your intellectual dueling w/hieronymous over what use an F-16 would have over Benghazi is a perfect example. (There’s no identifying the expert in that conversation.) My uncle might have been a military pilot during the Korean War but, despite being out of date, even he didn’t think too highly of your inner city buzz cut using an F-16 sortie.

            Me, filibuster legitimate dissent? Not at all. You’ve got legitimate points to make, bring ‘em on. But if you perennially attempt to one-up the discussion by claiming unsubstantiated expertise that is then BELIED by your own comments (calling the woman who started Theranos a crony capitalist is a perfect example of you shooting yourself in your foot), then you do the entire discussion a disservice. You want courtesy out of me then you present your arguments COURTEOUSLY and then wait for a legitimate response and respond to that. You don’t produce a response that is 88% libelous labels and invective and your hand-crafted suppositions about what my thinking was w/(at the most) 12% interesting quasi-facts to offset the slurs.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But if you perennially attempt to one-up the discussion by claiming unsubstantiated expertise that is then BELIED by your own comments (calling the woman who started Theranos a crony capitalist is a perfect example of you shooting yourself in your foot)…”

            You really are so GD stupid. This is a perfect example of why I could never have any interest in anything you say unless you go back and rectify the massive bullshit you’ve tried to sling already. But you just keep doubling down.

          • Americana

            Nah, you just are trying so hard to shovel your cr*ptastic sh*tz and giggles at me that you don’t even recognize when it’s not appropriate for you to NOT DO SO. Calling that woman who started Theranos a crony capitalist was totally off the cuff crazy but you did it anyway. It’s very typical of you and your knee-jerk anxiety to always have the right code words being tossed out in your posts at everyone you consider the enemy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go 2 days ago: “No. Socialism is not a disease any more than Capiltalism is a disease.”

            “America most certainly did need an intervention in the health insurance industry unless you’d prefer to simply ignore the millions of Americans who’d been thrown off the insurance rolls.”

            “What if we’d continued to allow this health insurance industry practice of winnowing out the chronically ill to carry on? What if we’d allowed the industry to expand the numbers of Americans spit out by the insurance industry as the American population faced major chronic illnesses that would have placed many Americans on the non-insurable rolls and if this process of elimination of them from the insurance rolls continued into the next 50 years?”

            People would stop buying insurance and some doctors would lower their fees.

            “What’s your expectation of how that would have played out? I’m interested in your specific response to that question.”

            Certainly we might not be able to follow the Yellow Brick Road as a nation without interventions every time the mobs demand more free crap.

          • Americana

            REALLY, this sentence of yours below is what you believe would happen if the health insurance sector of the insurance industry was allowed to carry on for the next few decades w/the practices it’s been using for the past couple of decades? You’re willing to ALLOW THIS CURRENT SITUATION to play out OVER the next FEW DECADES? That would be totally unacceptable.

            (OFM) “People would stop buying insurance and some doctors would lower their fees.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re willing to ALLOW THIS CURRENT SITUATION to play out OVER the next FEW DECADES? That would be totally unacceptable.”

            Increasing competition and decreasing coercive “social justice” meddling will (perhaps ironically) deliver higher levels of “social justice” organically.

            If you say something is unacceptable I can only laugh. It’s not for you to accept or reject.

          • Americana

            Oh, but that’s where you’re wrong. Of course it’s up to each individual to accept or reject something as being acceptable or unacceptable. If there is enough recognition that a situation is unacceptable, then we legislate something different than what the current status quo is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            We have a Constitution.

          • Americana

            Yes, we do have a Constitution. We also have business reforms that are undertaken when business models are exclusionary and deleterious to the general population. That’s what happened w/health insurance. The health insurance industry knew they were in the sights of the government for throwing sick people off the insurance rolls, but the insurance industry stonewalled about making any changes of their own vis-a-vis their exclusionary business practices and the government took them to task.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, we do have a Constitution. We also have business reforms that are undertaken when business models are exclusionary and deleterious to the general population.”

            Dumbass,

            Why do you need new laws if we (and we do) already have robust antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, disclosure laws and so forth and then you say you have to take over entire industries because “fairness?”

            You’re just another crackpot communist.

          • Americana

            If Socialism leads to terminal Communism, why is that most Socialist countries haven’t gone Communist?

          • Doc2Go

            Which ones haven’t? Has America been picking up the bill for defending them from Communists, since 1945?

            -Doc

          • Americana

            What does America shouldering the defense of Western Europe have to do w/those Socialist countries descending (or not descending) into Communism? Your statement was that Socialist countries have become Communist countries. I’m saying most of them haven’t taken any further steps toward Communism than having nationalized education and nationalized health care. Defend your claim.

            Besides, since many Communist countries (even CHINA!) have chosen to allow other than pure Communism within their borders since recognizing that capitalism has it own intrinsic benefits, your point is moot even before you’ve written your rebuttal.

          • Doc2Go

            Oh, so my point is moot? O.K. I didn’t know that. I guess you have won. I will now have three pints of Guinness, to celebrate your overwhelming intellectual superiority to the rest of us mere mortal men.

            Cheers!

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Since there’s no connection between the widespread transformation of Socialist countries into Communist countries as shown by historical events and the transformation from Socialism to Communism isn’t seemingly accomplished via the presence of American troops and American bases, I’d say the responsibility for proving your thesis is in your court. So, go ahead, have at it. Let’s have a list of ALL THOSE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES that have gone Communist…

          • Americana

            The Guinness might help. Maybe the Vitamin B will push you over the top.

          • Doc2Go

            The Guinness is helping. It is not taking away the pain, so much as it reduces my consideration for it. I already toasted your insurmountable ego…er…intellect. What more do you want? I am breaking out some peach Schnapps, now. Maybe you should place an order, as well. When the wind turns cold on me, the Schnapps does help.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I cannot imagine a more disgusting combination of drinks. Guinness followed by peach schnapps??? Uggh. Spare your brain cells, stick w/Guinness.

          • Doc2Go

            Nah! have you tried it? The Guinness is like liquid chocolate, right? Then a brief dip into Schnapps, before bed. It is like a dessert, after a hearty meal, my friend.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Oh, please, stop the games playing!

          • Doc2Go

            I am playing no games. Incrementalism is a concept you understand? Do you have faith that there are people in the world who hate you, your country, and all of Western Civilisation enough to lie to you, steal from you, and eventually kill you? Do you have any faith in how exceedingly patient, deliberate, and calculating these same people can be? No. Probably not. After all, if you have been a diligent apologist for them, they must spare you, right? Whatever helps you sleep at night, Mate. Fair play to you.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Yes, you are playing games. Incrementally, but you’re still playing games. Each and every time you label me as a Marxist or a neo-Marxist or a Socialist or a (Socialist) Democrat, you’re playing the propaganda game and expecting you’re executing the winning move by making those claims. But that isn’t the way to win a debate in the real world, where facts rule. It’s only the way to win a debate here on Front Page Mag where a cheering section of one — Pete — gives you the thumbs up.

          • Doc2Go

            Mein G-tt, but you are dense, aren’t you? You troll as an apologist for Liberal Democrat Socialists…then deny it.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            A man who’s too delicate to spell out the word G*d but he manages to use every other slur in the book… Of course, they’re not slurs from the Good Book so it’s fine by him.

          • Doc2Go

            I prefer not to blaspheme. So, kill me. I am not as delicate as you suppose. Identifying you as an apologist for Liberal Democrat Socialists isn’t a slur. It is an exclamation. It is more in the same vein as,
            “Wow, Harry. Look at the size of that beetle, will you? He’s a bloody monster, he is.”

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go • 6 hours ago: “A man who’s too delicate to spell out the word G*d but he manages to use every other slur in the book… Of course, they’re not slurs from the Good Book so it’s fine by him.”
            Are you trying to imply that God has a problem with outing psychopathic communists like you?
            Sure. Whatever.

          • Americana

            It’s sort of indicative of the general paranoid bias of many here that you and Doc and Pete all accuse someone like me of being a psychopathic Communist. Lordy, but the desperation to attach those particular labels w/Superglue is pervasive in this place!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 7 hours ago: “It’s sort of indicative of the general paranoid bias of many here that you and Doc and Pete all accuse someone like me of being a psychopathic Communist. Lordy, but the desperation to attach those particular labels w/Superglue is pervasive in this place!”

            You just convince yourself that we can’t possibly be on to something. You are an idiot and you’ve never run your own business. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You won’t admit that you learned all of these ideas through narratives without actual validation.

            You guys are so scienceish! Because you say so.

          • Americana

            Lordy, but your mouth does run away w/you sometimes. As for me being the one who’s full of the rhetorical dickens, you sound like that happens w/you all far more than it does to me. You’ve just got tin ears.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re in over your head. You’re busted. Nobody is buying what you’re selling. You’ve outed yourself. Clear enough?

          • Americana

            What a punk. All hat and no cattle.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 8 hours ago: “What a punk. All hat and no cattle.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Incrementally, but you’re still playing games”

            He’s referring to Fabianism or Fabian socialism. You don’t understand WTF anyone says but you rant and rant anyway.

          • Americana

            Let’s not pretend that he’s trying to draw any sort of distinction between the manner of achievement of Socialism and how that ends up leading to Communism. The Fabian Society may have believed in the gradual institution of Socialist principles on society but that doesn’t or wouldn’t necessarily lead to the imposition of full-blown Communism any more than any other segue of the political state in a more Socialist direction would necessarily lead to Communism. If this weren’t so, we would have seen a huge increase in the transformation of Socialist countries into Communist countries. Where’s the evidence of the continued slide into full-blown Communism in developed countries other than in only moderately developed South American nations where millennial-old social disparities have caused political pressures? Certainly Western Europe isn’t continuing the slide into full-blown Communism because they have the homogeneity and conviction that preservation of societal values and stability are essential to their nationhood.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Let’s not pretend that he’s trying to draw any sort of distinction between the manner of achievement of Socialism and how that ends up leading to Communism. The Fabian Society may have believed in the gradual institution of Socialist principles on society but that doesn’t or wouldn’t necessarily lead to the imposition of full-blown Communism any more than any other segue of the political state in a more Socialist direction would necessarily lead to Communism. ”

            Dumbass,

            It doesn’t matter you clueless moron! This is exactly like the argument that ISIS is OK because a global caliphate is not achievable. It doesn’t matter to us if malicious actors realize their ultimate dreams. What matters is that they cause harm trying.

            If YOU want “good socialism” YOU must purge the fraud. But that requires quite a bit of competence and few of you have that.

          • Americana

            Ah, the old “clueless moron” slur… You’re slipping into your old chit chat habits. Try to stay remotely civil.

            Whoever said “ISIS is OK because a global Caliphate is not achievable”? Anyone who’s ever said anything about the impossibility of ISIS gaining real world power and continuing its ultimate expansionist aims toward world domination is simply pointing out the reality that ISIS has to fight a WORLD WAR before achieving that aim.

            As for this sentence of YOURS, (OFM) “If YOU want “good socialism” YOU must purge the fraud. But that requires quite a bit of competence and few of you have that.” It seems that in this sentence, you’ve at least recognized there is GOOD in Socialism even if one has to winnow out the fraudulent thinking. I’ll trust there is competence enough to recognize the good and deflect the bad. There’s been a lot of real-world experience w/Socialism at this point and the realities are beginning to be recognized for what they indicate is sociologically possible for humanity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It seems that in this sentence, you’ve at least recognized there is GOOD in Socialism even if one has to winnow out the fraudulent thinking.”

            Dumbass,

            I never said every aspect of socialism through all history was evil.

            “There’s been a lot of real-world experience w/Socialism at this point and the realities are beginning to be recognized for what they indicate is sociologically possible for humanity.”

            You’re just bullshitting again. According to your definition the Ancient Romans were also “socialists” because they built bridges and roads. All of this is over your head. You can’t even get it right when you do lexicon research.

            I seriously never realized how full of crap you are.

          • Americana

            I would hesitate to keep slinging cr*p when your cr*ptastic display or rhetorical brilliance has once again landed you in lala land. As for the Romans not being “Socialists,” of course, they couldn’t be Socialists when the philosophy nor the term had been invented yet. But the Romans realized the necessity for each class of the Roman population to pay taxes for the common good according to their means. Though there were vacillating tax rates as the Roman Empire grew, as well as the common economic pains of growth followed by contraction and inflation, the underlying concept of paying according to one’s means didn’t change all that radically throughout the Roman Empire.

            http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

            (OFM) “The lunatic totally misses my point: Lots of people die no matter how far they get. We want them to stop trying unless they redefine caliphate and sharia and so forth, which is very unlikely.”

            As shown by the above and by similar sentences sprinkled throughout all of your diatribes, I seriously have never failed to realize how full of crap you were right from the get-go. The fact you CANNOT participate in any discussion without slinging the foulest verbiage and insults you can is proof enough of you being a shill.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for the Romans not being “Socialists,” of course, they couldn’t be Socialists when the philosophy nor the term had been invented yet.”

            According to you they were proto-socialists. You claimed that building infrastructure was “socialism.”

            You’re quite the dumbass.

            “The fact you CANNOT participate in any discussion without slinging the foulest verbiage and insults you can is proof enough of you being a shill.”

            I’ve always been clear about my hatred for liars, and worse, lying communists like you. Long before you started spamming people and imagining you were winning arguments with your absurd neo-Marxist rants.

          • Americana

            That’s not quite what I claimed but you’re welcome to pretend that it was. The ancient Romans had the good sense to recognize what facilitated the best governance and the best capitalism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 7 minutes ago: “That’s not quite what I claimed but you’re welcome to pretend that it was. The ancient Romans had the good sense to recognize what facilitated the best governance and the best capitalism.”

            Did you not cite early American expenditures on “infrastructure” as indicative of early support for “socialist” programs?

            Yes or no. What was your point? Oh, they had public works and therefore socialized medicine is AOK? Infrastructure and public works are already called for in the Constitution under General Welfare. But that word has been coopted to mean something a lot more.

            You see, I still have strong private property rights according to the same Constitution. You have a very high burden before you can pass laws taking money for your delusional programs. Of course that is why your favored pols lie and why you support their lies.

            The Romans knew what the best capitalism was? Um, OK. It was really in response to security needs first – but whatever. And they probably used a lot of slave labor. So…whatever. Few people would cite those projects as an example for anything other than intelligence in managing resources according to the interests of the state. It’s possible they had no need to capitalize any significant aspect of these projects.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Whoever said “ISIS is OK because a global Caliphate is not achievable”? Anyone who’s ever said anything about the impossibility of ISIS gaining real world power and continuing its ultimate expansionist aims toward world domination is simply pointing out the reality that ISIS has to fight a WORLD WAR before achieving that aim.”

            The lunatic totally misses my point: Lots of people die no matter how far they get. We want them to stop trying unless they redefine caliphate and sharia and so forth, which is very unlikely.

          • Americana

            The lunatic aka objectivefactsmatter at his best and brightest: “The lunatic totally misses my point: Lots of people die no matter how far they get. We want them to stop trying unless they redefine caliphate and sharia and so forth, which is very unlikely.”

            Take note of the last sentence, everyone, and read it and weep about the so-called intelligence that operates the automaton called OFM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Where’s the evidence of the continued slide into full-blown Communism in developed countries other than in only moderately developed South American nations where millennial-old social disparities have caused political pressures?”

            Let me put it to you in very simple terms that I hope you can understand. This whole discourse on Marxism pros and cons is not about labels or vision for an end game. It’s about a framework for blaming an allegedly defective system for failures without drilling down to authenticate the ideas. It’s about mendacious and fraudulent interventions that wreck things and only make things worse, and then blaming “capitalists” (personal freedoms) for problems caused by you communists. It’s about attacking personal sovereignty in favor of state sovereignty because no matter what your analysis is, what labels you use, none of that matters. You are attacking personal liberties with mendacious narratives, stupid disproved theories and fraud masked as altruism.

            Of course you’re all incompetent liars. That’s the point. There is no fear of “communism” itself, which is entirely delusional. That’s like saying that intelligent people that question moronic environmentalists are worried that they are going to make the planet too clean and perfect. No, you’ll wreck it trying because you’re all idiots.

          • Americana

            Of course there’s “fear of Communism” and “Socialism” if that fear-mongering is the essence of the web site. Horowitz wouldn’t write books about it if he weren’t afraid for this country that Socialism will become the law of the land. What the heck do you think you’ve written about here if it’s not about the end game for this country? (OFM) “This whole discourse on Marxism pros and cons is not about labels or vision for an end game. It’s about a framework for blaming an allegedly defective system for failures without drilling down to authenticate the ideas.”

            If you’re writing about fighting the appropriation of personal property in PRESENT TENSE here in the U.S. then you’re not simply concentrating on “authenticating the ideas” underlying Marxism/Socialism/Communism, you’re trying to prevent any possible slide toward those philosophies by this country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t care about the philosophies per se as long as they stop causing harm. With complete morons like you that try to justify socialized medicine and who knows what else by referencing “right to pursue happiness” OBVIOUSLY people need to be corrected on their whole mendacious and moronic worldview.

            So just shut up and realize that you have scored zero points. You’re an idiot dupe trying to defend yourself when the fact is that you were raised on many contradictory ideas that you never fully reconciled and now your both defending “capitalism” and Marxist socialism without having any idea where the thresholds are.

            You seem totally incapable of learning anything. You need to change your approach or you won’t even be capable of stopping yourself from spamming your rants here. You’re just a homer for the left looking for talking points to use against political enemies. You don’t really understand any of it.

          • Americana

            How often do I have to point out that Communism is a CONTRACTING political choice? There are only 5 Communist countries left in the world.

            As for me “being raised on many contradictory ideas that (I) never fully reconciled” and that I’m “now both defending “capitalism” and “Marxist socialism” without having any idea where the thresholds are.” Well, I’ve obviously got a far better idea than you of where the thresholds are if I know what is happening around the world as far as the contraction of Communism goes. You’re still trying to sell Communism as an up and comer when it’s not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OMG you are stupid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Fabian Society may have believed in the gradual institution of Socialist principles on society but that doesn’t or wouldn’t necessarily lead to the imposition of full-blown Communism any more than any other segue of the political state in a more Socialist direction would necessarily lead to Communism.”

            Let me put it to you in the simplest possible terms:

            Marx created a rhetorical framework for blaming “capitalism” for many aspects of the human condition. As criticism it has some value but it can all be refuted easily.

            However, since Marxism is presented as comprehensive including reasons why others are not “enlightened” he also created a framework for deciding that it’s morally right to attack and undermine anyone that disagrees.

            But ultimately what is implied by Marx? Simply that if one observes injustice in the world that it can be blamed on having too much liberty with private property. Traditional private property rights must be attacked consistently until….communism.

            What does that mean. Anyone that envies someone else’s property, no matter the scale, can use Marxist frameworks for justifying a political attack on free markets, property rights, and ultimately on the freedom of capital owners to defend their own rights to preserve their own liberty.

            See the problem? It doesn’t matter if they can’t ever achieve communism. Because the tactics require a lot of disruptive activities that are bad for everyone and they create zero sum (at best) or destructive tactics for gaining wealth.

            Just as I explained many times in the jihadi realms, it does not matter whether a global caliphate is plausible because those planes still slammed in to the WTC and people are losing their heads all over the world. More resources are being mustered than before to commit more acts of terror, piracy and mayhem. It’s the same with communism and communists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go • 7 days ago: “Oh, please, stop the games playing!”
            Dumbass,
            Politicians play games. We’re explaining. Why would an intelligent, rational person blame the messenger?

          • Americana

            Why would there be any need to defend Communists FROM Communists?

          • Doc2Go

            It is the old saw, about protecting the “good” Socialists from the “bad” Socialists. I never said it was a good idea, only that I observed at close hand, as it happened.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go 2 days ago: “Why would there be any need to defend Communists FROM Communists?”

            Because communism does not actually exist. Anyone trying to build Heaven on Earth is going to run in to a lot of people that disagree about how that should proceed.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “Because Communism does not actually exist.”

            Then why are you constantly beating the drums about fighting Communism?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 5 days ago:

            (OFM) “Because Communism does not actually exist.”

            “Then why are you constantly beating the drums about fighting Communism?”

            Because dumbasses like you get stupid ideas in their heads without even understanding fallacies and or origins.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go • 7 days ago: “Why would there be any need to defend Communists FROM Communists?”

            Because there are many various factions and we (America, not you) want to prove that free market capitalism is better. We started helping nations rebuild after WWII and at the same time the communists were running propaganda campaigns (which actually started decades before that). Basically these countries were being supported and wooed so that they would first not join the Soviet camp and second be able to stand up on their own.

            Unfortunately since we have communists here in the USA thwarting the anti-communist campaigns it did not work out as well as it should have.

          • Americana

            Seriously, you’re going to pretend that many Socialist countries have gone Communist? Then what are you going to do about analyzing what the h*ck happened in Communist countries that have altered their trajectory and are now harboring capitalists and capitalism? Oh, no!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because communists are delusional. It’s not possible. Communism is the ideal, socialism is the path and fascism is the real world result. China, Russia, just about every sovereign in the world is tainted to some degree or another by fascist interventionism. It’s a stealth way to build power and mask it as altruism.

          • Americana

            Funny, but China is one of the countries w/the most number of billionaires. I would guess that’s because Communism has begun its long slide back to a more centrist political state of being in that country. Ever since China recognized that it needed to unleash its population’s capitalist drive, there’s been no keeping them down on the collective farms. I don’t believe in any totalitarian or fascist political state being able to maintain itself long term. There may be some generations that are sucked into the Communist vortex but as shown by what happened w/the Eastern European Russian satellites, there’s always a swinging political pendulum. I have more faith in countries’ populations rejecting Communism than embracing it. Certainly w/only 5 Communist countries in the world, it’s not a world-beater political philosophy.

            http://geography.about.com/od/lists/tp/communistcountries.htm

            From the above link:

            During the reign of the Soviet Union, there were communist countries throughout Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. Communist countries in the twentieth century included Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. Today, there are only five communist countries in the world.
            __________________________________________________________________________

            http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/28/business/global-billionaire-list-hurun/index.html

            From the above link:

            Hong Kong (CNN) — The world has at least 1,453 billionaires, with about half of those residing in the U.S. and China, according to the Hurun Global Rich List.

            In terms of cities, Moscow is home to the greatest number of billionaires with 76, followed by New York (70), Hong Kong (52), Beijing (41) and London (40).

            “For every billionaire that Hurun Report has found, I estimate we have missed at least two, meaning that today there are probably 4,000 billionaires in the world,” said Rupert Hoogewerf, chairman and chief researcher of Hurun Report, a Shanghai-based publishing group that tracks China’s wealthy.

            “Asia is home to the lion’s share of billionaires on the planet with 608 individuals, followed by North America with 440 billionaires and Europe 324,” said the report. “By country, the US was home to 409 billionaires, comfortably ahead of the 317 from China.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Funny, but China is one of the countries w/the most number of billionaires. I would guess that’s because Communism has begun its long slide back to a more centrist political state of being in that country.”

            Moron, I said that China is fascist. I said that communists always dream about communism or socialism, but end up with fascism. And then your reply is that China has billionaires. No shirt, Shelock. And then you support your irrelevant point with a link that actually supports what I said.

            You’re so dumb. It really is pointless talking to you. It is valuable exposing you though.

            Throw all of the URLs you want. You’ll just be further exposing yourself as an idiotic communist that thinks she can outsmart people. But it’s only other idiots like you that are impressed by your narratives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…there were communist countries…”

            No nation ever employed communism for its economic system. Just as many sovereigns integrate “republic” in to their nomenclature does not make them true republics, using Marxist naming schemes doesn’t mean they’ve actually achieved communism.

          • Americana

            Well, if that’s the case then what are so many of you worried about? (But, your sentence as written doesn’t make any sense according to…)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because I hate fascists like you. That’s where Marxism always goes when communists and Marxist socialists achieve any political power.

            And I already explained this to you at least 3 times on this page.

          • Americana

            What a great post! Takes the words right out of the playbook and adds to that the little to no individual thought as is always shown by objectivefactsmatter. That’s why your BB handle is all in lower case because you’re such a tool, such a SHRILL SHILL for certain web sites. You’ve got about as much capacity to identify a Communist or a Socialist or any other specific political persuasion as a squatting dog. You word drop and that’s about it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 5 days ago:

            “That’s why your BB handle is all in lower case because you’re such a tool, such a SHRILL SHILL for certain web sites. You’ve got about as much capacity to identify a Communist or a Socialist or any other specific political persuasion as a squatting dog. You word drop and that’s about it.”

            This is what we call denial.

          • Americana

            You want the cachet of your BB handle without actually having objective facts in hand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Socialism is like the Yellow Brick Road. Some people think they’re on the way to communism or “Oz” doesn’t actually exist. Not as a worker’s paradise anyway or any other form of Utopia. Others are just happy to enjoy the perks of being on the road. It’s the easiest way to seize OPM.

            MK?

          • Americana

            Oh, they didn’t? Strange, that China and Russia and North Korea and Cuba and blah blah blah employed communism for their economic system. Ah, but you’re claiming these countries failed to achieve Communism… (Wonder what that stange little sentence means? Better call OFM!) Why, it’s objectivefactsmatter BSing about the “failure to achieve Communism” at the economic level in those Communist countries. What economic system were they operating under then?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, they didn’t? Strange, that China and Russia and North Korea and Cuba and blah blah blah employed communism for their economic system.”

            No idiot, they didn’t. They killed a lot of people that once ran private enterprise. That’s about it.

          • Americana

            They called themselves and their countries Communist. They operated Communist state enterprises and state entities. Your false distinction is moot given their history. It’s a mystery why you’d try to craft such a bizarre distinction.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 2 minutes ago: “They called themselves and their countries Communist.”

            Dummy,

            I covered that.

            “They operated Communist state enterprises and state entities.”

            State capitalism isn’t actually ipso facto communism. MK?

            “It’s a mystery why you’d try to craft such a bizarre distinction.”

            Because Marxists and their dupes employ a lot of fallacies. Parsing fact from fiction is part of the cleanup job.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s a mystery why you’d try to craft such a bizarre distinction.”

            It’s only a mystery to confused communist morons like you.

          • Americana

            Nope, not just to me. It’s a mystery to anyone who’s read anything you’ve ever written about Communism and Communist countries and Communists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Idiot,

            Read a lot more from intelligent people that understand economics like the 6-part article I gave you, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich von Hayek and or other intelligent, experienced and competent people that can teach students that actually want to understand the discourse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://classroom.synonym.Com/true-communism-8904.html

            Excerpt:

            All for All

            The central tenet of communism is that all private property should be abolished. In a true communist society, no one would own anything. All property and all means of agricultural and industrial production would be collectively owned by society as a whole. Each member of a true communist society would be expected to contribute as able and would be allowed to take what needed.

            No More States

            Communists theorize that the working people must unite and overthrow the governments in their countries. Most communists believe that the state must continue to exist in order to enforce social and economic equality until true communism is reached. Theoretically, true communism would eliminate the need for the state and ruling class, allowing the working class to decide matters democratically in a manner beneficial to society as a whole.

            International in Scope

            Communism as outlined by Marx and Engels is a global movement, designed to bring the entire world into a Utopian worker’s paradise. From its inception, the Communist Party has viewed itself – at least in theory – as an international party representing the workers of the world. Many communists believe that true communism can only last if it becomes the driving force for the entire world.

            The Final Frontier

            In Marxist thinking, communism is the final stage in the struggle between the working class and the ruling class. (Ref 3) The Communist Manifesto teaches that all of society must pass from feudal or monarchial rule to industrial revolution and capitalism and eventually to the overthrow of capitalists by the workers. (Ref 1,3) True communists teaches that the workers’ revolution will usher in two stages of communism. (Ref 2, II) The first is the “rule of the proletariat” in which the Communist Party rules on behalf of the workers, building a foundation for the workers to eventually be able to govern themselves with true communism. (Ref 2,II) Even though the Communist Party came to power in several countries during the 20th century, true communism has never been achieved. (Ref 1)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for his rationale as to why the ACA was undertaken as it was, that was because there would have been no ACA without the concessions to the American insurance industry”

            http://pjmedia.Com/tatler/2014/11/13/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-obama-was-in-the-room-when-the-cadillac-tax-was-created/

            Text from video:

            The next time I see him is summer 2009. The big issue there is that he really wants to make sure I’m moving forward on cost control. I think that at this point he sort of knew we had a good plan on coverage, but he was worried on cost control. So we had a meeting in the Oval Office with several experts, including myself, on what can we do to get credible savings on cost control that the Congressional Budget Office would recognize and score as savings in this law.

            And that was a meeting — it was very exciting, once again, because the economists in the room all said the number one thing you need to do is you need to take on the tax subsidy to employer-sponsored insurance. We need one minute of background on this. The way employer-sponsored insurance works is, if you get paid in wages, you get taxed. If you get paid in health insurance, you do not. …

            So this tax subsidy economists have been railing against for decades, it’s super-expensive. We forego about $250 billion per year in tax revenues. It’s regressive — the richer you are, the bigger tax break you get. And it’s inefficient because it causes people to buy excessive health insurance. So everyone in the room said, “You want something that is real cost control that we know it will work, go after this.”

            Now, the problem is, it’s a political nightmare, … and people say, “No, you can’t tax my benefits.” So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how could we make this work? And Obama was like, “Well, you know” — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, “Look, I can’t just do this.” He said: “It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.

            Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn’t get nearly enough credit. I mean, this is the first time after years and years of urging — and the entire health policy, there was not one single health expert in America who is setting up a system from scratch, would have this employer subsidy in place. Not one.

            So after years and years of us wanting to get rid of this, to finally go after it was just such a huge victory for health policy. And I’m just incredibly proud that he and the others who supported this law were willing to do it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The economic rise of those remaining Third World countries is working against the developed economic might of the U.S. ”

            No it’s not you retarded communist. As other nations increase their own productivity, they trade and make gain and buy more from us. You can point to a few markets where we might lose, but the general trend is the expansion of wealth overall.

            “This isn’t economic information that arises from any philosophical viewpoint, this is straightforward information about the shift in the world’s economic balance.”

            See, it is POV. It’s from the fallacy that trade and economic development is zero sum. I take from him, he takes from me. If he has more it means he took something from someone.

            No, that was Marx’s theory for a time when technology “topped out” and robots basically performed all labor. But dimwits just accept this zero sum fallacy and use it for silly narratives like you just did.

            As a matter of fact the best thing for “the world” is to help all nations work on creating economies that provide upward mobility for those that earn it.

            No free market? The world sinks. At this point, who knows what that would look like?

          • Americana

            That’s not the only scope of what we’re talking about, you retarded hoity toity capitalist. So what if wealth is expanding for certain demographics in the U.S. if the entire population isn’t benefiting from that rise in growth of concentrated capital? After all, you claim that other countries are buying American goods and that therefore American wealth is rising. But if those consumer goods are NOT BEING MANUFACTURED here in the U.S., then there are NO JOBS attached to that theoretical wealth accumulation that you’re touting. The only ones who might be benefiting from that American manufacturing of goods are the top tier who own the off-shore manufacturing plants.

            Who is calling for no free markets? I’m certainly not. I’m just realistic about where the free markets actually intersect w/real world economics and real world demographics between the developed world and developing world. The U.S. is NOT HOLDING ITS OWN against other countries in terms of durable goods and the balance of trade. Who knows what the TransPacific Partnership trade agreement will bring when and if it’s signed but it’s unlikely to be totally rosy news for U.S. workers w/the development surge in the Near East.

            http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/durable-goods-orders

            From the above link:

            Durable Goods Orders Disappoint
            New orders for manufactured durable goods decreased 1.3 percent in September, following a revised 18.3 percent drop in August. It is the second consecutive slide as capital goods orders decreased the most in eight months and transportation orders fell 3.7 percent. Published on 2014-10-28

            US Durable Goods Orders Fall Sharply
            New orders for manufactured durable goods shrank 18.2 percent in August, following a revised 22.5 percent surge in July. Excluding transportation, new orders rose 0.7 percent. Published on 2014-09-25

          • objectivefactsmatter

            By the way, this comment I’m replying to is just spam. Throwing out articles to front that you have some kind of understanding about what we’re talking about and doing it over and over again is spam.

          • Americana

            That’s not what is done by anyone here. Spam is just the intellectual food group you all assiduously would like to claim you must avoid because it’s bad for your intellectual health. Spam is not whatever you name as Spam. The Spamalot declaration days are OVER.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m afraid of learning something from you. It scares me.

            “Spam is not whatever you name as Spam. The Spamalot declaration days are OVER.”

            WTF are you ranting about, spammer?

          • Americana

            Obviously, your spamalot routine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It requires nothing more than simple routines when replying to moronic communist spammers.

          • Americana

            That’s your trouble. You’ve got a ROTE ROUTINE and ROTE REASONING which effectively indicate YOU DON’T REASON as you write. You’re supposed to be just regurgitating cult phrases that are pre-approved by management. It’s like you’re working in a Chinese fortune cookie factory and you really don’t realize what the most applicable Chinese fortune cookie phrase might be w/which to reply to posts.

            Your ability to identify “moronic Communist spammers” is about as accurate as your ability to identify a truly innovative capitalist. But continue w/your selfie spamalot routine. It’s highly amusing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re supposed to be just regurgitating cult phrases that are pre-approved by management”

            Dumbass,

            You’re ignorant. I’m not. Do more research. I gave you a good primer. Read it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 7 hours ago: “That’s not the only scope of what we’re talking about, you retarded hoity toity capitalist.”

            Communists always know better than capitalists. Notice both words come from the Marxist lexicon. You all talk to each other and all of your arguments employ circular logic without regard for verification.

          • Americana

            What “both words come from the Marxist lexicon”? Communism and Capitalism? As far as I’m aware, Capitalism was named by a Scottish economist. As for circular logic, you not only use circular logic, you circle your economic wagons at the least sign of real discussion about economic issues.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalist_theory

            From the above link:

            Adam Smith (Scottish!!) is considered the first theorist of what we commonly refer to as capitalism. His 1776 work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, theorized that within a given stable system of commerce and evaluation, individuals would respond to the incentive of earning more by specializing their production. These individuals would naturally, without specific state intervention, “direct … that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value.” This would enable the whole economy to become more productive, and it would therefore be wealthier. Smith argued that protecting particular producers would lead to inefficient production, and that a national hoarding of specie (i.e. cash in the form of coinage) would only increase prices, in an argument similar to that advanced by David Hume. His systematic treatment of how the exchange of goods, or a market, would create incentives to act in the general interest, became the basis of what was then calledpolitical economy and later economics. It was also the basis for a theory of law and government that gradually superseded the mercantilist regime then prevalent.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Capitalism was named by a Scottish economist…”

            Not the way you use it. You use Marx’s lexicon.

            capitalism (n.) 1854, “condition of having capital;” from capital (n.1) + -ism. Meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872.

            IOW, not a pejorative. It has a very clear meaning until idiots like you came along.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            From your excerpt:

            “Adam Smith (Scottish!!) is considered the first theorist of what we commonly refer to as capitalism.”

            We. Not he.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Who is calling for no free markets? I’m certainly not. I’m just realistic about where the free markets actually intersect w/real world economics and real world demographics between the developed world and developing world. The U.S. is NOT HOLDING ITS OWN against other countries in terms of durable goods and the balance of trade. Who knows what the TransPacific Partnership trade agreement will bring when and if it’s signed but it’s unlikely to be totally rosy news for U.S. workers w/the development surge in the Near East.”

            Regurgitation. The number one cause of our decline in manufacturing is the mob criminals organizing labor. But you like that. So now you can’t whine about losing jobs after supporting the union’s destruction of so many of those jobs. Unless you’re going to tell me you want to reform labor laws.

            We don’t have to have manufacturing jobs to have job growth. It’s nice, but anyway…not really a requirement to go back in time.

          • Americana

            Regurgitation? You’re the one who regurgitates without even thinking of what you’re regurgitating and that’s where those wacky sentences of yours come from that I can extract from almost all of your long diatribes.

            We need to have a balanced economy w/all sectors humming if we wish to support a middle-class. That’s a FACT according to every economist I’ve ever read or spoken with about our economic situation. The unions didn’t destroy those manufacturing jobs. The world development growth destroyed those jobs because of the migration of U.S. multinational corporations to less expensive manufacturing environments. The fact U.S. workers should have realized what they were facing as competition and have adjusted their expectations doesn’t mean they should have gone back to Third World wages and benefits just as any cutbacks they made should have been reflected in their management ranks. Oh, so we don’t have to have manufacturing jobs to have job growth? You think job growth in part time jobs at Starbucks is sufficient for people who are paying a mortgage, buying a car, paying medical insurance or having children? Or that the U.S. can dominate in only a couple of sectors and that would be sufficient to keep the entire country afloat?

            http://www.businessinsider.com/manufacturing-jobs-returning-to-america-2013-2

            From the above link:

            The trend of companies relocating American manufacturing jobs to low-wage China has started to reverse, as shown by recent decisions by Apple Inc., General Electric Co, Caterpillar, DSM, General Motors and even Chinese electronics giant Lenovo to scale up operations here.

            The bottom line: For the first time in decades, several key economic drivers have created a competitive advantage for the U.S. that will encourage corporate strategic decisions on capital allocation and acquisitions for generations to come.

            Here’s why:

            1. Cheap and abundant natural gas. Shale gas and High Plains oil have delivered a miracle to the U.S. economy. America’s increased energy production creates a significant edge for U.S. based manufacturing. With supplies plentiful in the U.S., natural gas currently trades at $3.25 per thousand cubic feet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There will always be far more Americans aware of the iceberg…”

            You’re one of the trouble makers and you think you’re one of those sitting on the watchtower.

          • Americana

            Hardly. You’re one of the troublemakers erecting the specific style of watchtower you believe is ideal without being remotely aware of what other watchers are thinking because you’re such a knee-jerk ideologue. You’ve declared me a Communist even though I am robustly enthusiastic about the really great UP and COMING CAPITALISTS. You even had the nerve to declare that Elizabeth Holmes the newly-minted billionaire who started Theranos, a blood-testing business, was guilty of CRONY CAPITALISM without EVEN RECOGNIZING SHE’D DESIGNED A BRILLIANT BUSINESS PLAN. I’d say there are capitalists in this crowd and they sure don’t count you among them.

            http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/technology/theranos-elizabeth-holmes/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You even had the nerve to declare that Elizabeth Holmes the newly-minted billionaire who started Theranos, a blood-testing business, was guilty of CRONY CAPITALISM without EVEN RECOGNIZING SHE’D DESIGNED A BRILLIANT BUSINESS PLAN.”

            No I didn’t moron. You missed the point. The point is that her ideas did not require government support. And if she was or will be looking for it that would be cronyism rather than relying on market selection. Put another way, your citation was stupid. It didn’t establish your bona fides in any sense just because you like someone’s ideas.

            Truly you are too dumb to wake up to the fact that you are too dumb to follow. That’s why I don’t bother trying to rectify every stupid thing you say.

          • Americana

            Ooops, you didn’t finish your post so I obviously can’t respond to this incomplete post of yours. I’m really curious why you wouldn’t finish such a stellar start to a post about a young billionaire capitalist.

            (OFM) “The point is that her ideas did not require….” <<<< Now THAT is a sentence that requires to be finished to keep the discussion going.

            WHAT didn't her ideas require? And why call her a crony capitalist?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Moron,

            If you still can’t complete that sentence…

            Have you read the 6-part article yet? No? Hmmm…Why don’t you cite me?

            “(OFM) “The point is that her ideas did not require….” <<<< Now THAT is a sentence that requires to be finished to keep the discussion going."

            "WHAT didn't her ideas require? And why call her a crony capitalist?"

            The only "confusion" was the result of poor clarity on your part as to why you originally cited her. I made conditional comments using works like "if" and so forth.

            If she seeks no subsidies then she is an example I can use to make my case. You cited her I assume at this point to show you don't hate all private ventures. Even Lenin agreed that some private ventures should be allowed.

            You're such a dummy. In the real world, all communists create fascism when they have the chance. You're no exception. Just because you find someone that you like. For now. And I have no doubt whatsoever that if you read even one TPM suggesting that the government take steps to promote this company or shape its presence in the marketplace you'd be completely down for that ideas as well. Don't bother lying about it.

            The point is that you're all for liberty and freedom as long as you approve of it. Just because you find a few examples of free people that you like doesn't make you less of a communist. Even Lenin allowed some private enterprise.

          • Americana

            There are almost no businesses in the U.S. that seek no subsidies of any kind. Whether those subsidies are in the start-up phase or at some point in their business life, many companies use subsidies or breaks of various kinds to facilitate their business. Crony capitalism is rampant in the oil and gas sector, in the public utilities sector, etc. Are you including those in your rant? I want to know just so I know how to craft a further response to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana a minute ago: “There are almost no businesses in the U.S. that seek no subsidies of any kind.”

            Not really. But even so, so what?

            “Whether those subsidies are in the start-up phase or at some point in their business life, many companies use subsidies or breaks of various kinds to facilitate their business.”

            A “break” is not a subsidy.

            “Crony capitalism is rampant in the oil and gas sector, in the public utilities sector, etc. Are you including those in your rant?”

            Of course it is – you dipshirt!

            “I want to know just so I know how to craft a further response to you.”

            Whatever.

          • Americana

            Americana a minute ago: “There are almost no businesses in the U.S. that seek no subsidies of any kind.”

            (OFM) “Not really. But even so, so what?”

            Wait a minute, you’ve just written out umpteen posts vilifying me for my lackadaisical (supposed) tolerance for crony capitalism or not understanding crony capitalism yet you write the above?

            If it doesn’t matter that most businesses in the U.S. seek subsidies and breaks, then why write such RABID RANTS about crony capitalism? Why are you suddenly writing that it doesn’t matter that this is seemingly standard business practice to seek out such subsidies and breaks? (OFM) “Even so, so what?” You REALLY WANT TO WRITE THAT? You’re happy w/being OK w/that? You know what you’ve written in that sentence?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If it doesn’t matter that most businesses in the U.S. seek subsidies and breaks, then why write such RABID RANTS about crony capitalism? Why are you suddenly writing that it doesn’t matter that this is seemingly standard business practice to seek out such subsidies and breaks? (OFM) “Even so, so what?” You REALLY WANT TO WRITE THAT? You’re happy w/being OK w/that? You know what you’ve written in that sentence?”

            Idiot,

            Certain policies are bad. Certain policies are thought to be good. Certain bad policies can be accepted as good by shortsighted people and thought good for a long time. And it’s usally bad to suddenly pull the plug on the status quo. Plus you need consensus before you map out new strategies. It’s too complicated. The fact that I observe and criticize new deals that rely on cronyism and interventions doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that past interventions were also not ideal. I simply understand how to set priorities.

            It’s exactly the same with welfare programs. I recognize how badly we’ve done but that doesn’t mean that I advocate rebooting it overnight and throwing people out in the cold. But I also recognized that screening out fraud and Identifying NEW policies that double down on past mistakes is much more important than ranting about every imperfect policy ever implemented. It’s called triage.

            Evidently this is yet more nuance you can’t even begin to process.

            http://www.merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/triage

            Full Definition of TRIAGE

            1a : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors

            b : the sorting of patients (as in an emergency room) according to the urgency of their need for care

            2: the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Wait a minute, you’ve just written out umpteen posts vilifying me for my lackadaisical (supposed) tolerance for crony capitalism or not understanding crony capitalism yet you write the above?”

            Dummy,

            IF the government decides to intervene, it’s stupid to leave money on the table that allows competitors to drive others out of business.

            It’s the government’s fault. You can blame the corporations that spearhead and fund demands to intervene in the first place and those that cozy up to the government to try to gain advantage but you can’t blame their competitors that simply try to get back on even footing with the troublemakers.

            Get it?

            If we decide that some guy doesn’t have to run 100 meters in competition but gets to move up 5 meters, would it not be stupid for the others to not demand equity to also line up at the revised line?

          • Americana

            Trying to redraft your stupid comment about Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos is about what I’ve come to expect from you. Truly, you are too dumb to wake up to the fact that you are too dumb to follow. I have to at least try to rectify every stupid thing you say just so it’s clear who’s the cooked cranium stupid in the conversation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Moron,

            You’re still confused. Find better sources to learn from or stop pretending your opinions have merit outside of the delusional bubble you inhabit.

          • Americana

            The cooked cranium crafts yet another rude post… Hahaha.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m rude and you’re a moron.

            “Settled science.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And really, just regurgitating things I’ve said to you…

            I’ve changed my mind. Yer so smart!

          • Americana

            No, just choosing to point out some of the dumb things you’ve written. The really JUICY PARTS bear repeating just in case someone misses their import when they’re embedded in the midst of all your bile.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Check your antenna, dumbass. The problem is with your reception.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 5 days ago: “Trying to redraft your stupid comment about Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos is about what I’ve come to expect from you.”
            Communist liar, why can’t you come up with this original statement I allegedly made?

          • Americana

            You remember your original statement, don’t you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m sure it contained the word “if.”

            if

            if/

            conjunction

            1. introducing a conditional clause.

            synonyms:on (the) condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that), assuming (that), as long as, given that, in the event that

            “if the rain holds out, we can walk”

            2. despite the possibility that; no matter whether.

            “if it takes me seven years, I shall do it”

            noun

            1. a condition or supposition.

            “there are so many ifs and buts in the policy”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Hardly. You’re one of the troublemakers erecting the specific style of watchtower you believe is ideal without being remotely aware of what other watchers are thinking because you’re such a knee-jerk ideologue.”

            I’m an ideologue that thinks our Constitution is worth defending. I’m an ideologue that thinks people should focus on and reward competence rather than political savvy in the marketplace. I’m an ideologue that has this crazy idea that delusional liars should be exposed.

          • Americana

            Ah ha, so you think that “people should focus on and reward competence rather than political savvy in the marketplace.” How come you haven’t applauded the woman who started Theranos then because that would SURE BE REWARDING COMPETENCE, never mind rewarding BRILLIANCE! You called the billionaire who started Theranos — an extremely INNOVATIVE and WINNING SCIENTIFIC BLOOD-TESTING BUSINESS — a CRONY CAPITALIST without even knowing anything about her or her business. If that’s the accuracy you display as to identifying crony capitalism, I wouldn’t want to have you in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s not crony capitalism, that’s someone who identified a niche medical-scientific business model that is likely to supplant the blood-testing industry that we have now, or at least dominate SOME of their blood-testing market.

            You may think our Constitution is worth defending. If I were you, I’d use more accurate language and more incisive thinking in its defense rather than this knee-jerk ideologue propaganda you constantly spew. Delusional liars should be exposed. Delusional idiots who can’t even accurately identify what they’re talking about (Theranos is crony capitalism at work, really???) should equally be exposed. Mouthing off about anything and everything in an attempt to work the IDENTICAL SOUND BITES into each and every post doesn’t cut it intellectually. And when you shoot yourself in the foot and the head and you gut your argument by mistakenly labeling things as you regularly do, you look less like a competent debater and more like some desperately out-of-touch, paid-by-the-post, RENT-A-RANT butted.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Unfortunately you have done nothing discernible to rectify your ignorance. Eventually it will be chalked up to malice as well.

            Read the 6-part article I gave you. OK dummy?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’d say there are capitalists in this crowd and they sure don’t count you among them.”

            Idiot, everyone is a capitalist in some sense if they want to use capital to drive enterprise. That’s what “capitalism” is. Communists want state capitalism on the road to communism or perhaps state capital is enough for them because they know they are losers that can’t get it done on their own competence.

            And best of all is to come up with an enterprise that will be favored by the state. That’s what all of you communists value when you’re stuck so far from your delusional dream world that you yearn for and try to build through agitation negotiation.

          • Americana

            You’re missing the point, OFM. The fact you couldn’t identify a full-blown billionaire capitalist who came up w/a WHIZ BANG CAPITALIST WINNING IDEA RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX tells me you’re about as authentic a capitalist as owns a hot dog stand. The fact you called her a CRONY CAPITALIST tells me even more about the breadth and exposure to capitalists that you claim.

            I don’t think I need to write anything about your deliberate confusing Communism and Socialism nor do I need to point out the fallacious and mendacious thought you always trot out — “Socialism leads to terminal Communism”. Good bumper sticker, extremely mendacious historical timeline to back up the bumper sticker thought.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Idiotic communist bluffer,

            You’re not even well-informed enough to follow the conversations. Read the 6-part article I gave you and then if you want to try again you may.

            You’re welcome.

          • Americana

            I’m not sure why there is such a constant need to award yourself victory on these web sites as if that will convince anyone that YOU are the WINNER of the debate. You do this, truebearing does it, Pete does it… You think giving yourselves the blue ribbon or the trophy or the applause right in your post gives the appropriate intellectual aura to your debate points? You’re supposed to be able to state your case, point by point, and nail down your argument and, voila, there’s a thesis presented in all its glory that knocks the socks off of those listening. Instead, what we get from all of you, are crass, cheap shots and summations that “I WIN! APPLAUSE!!! MORE APPLAUSE!!! I’M THE GREATEST!!!”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Basically lying loser spammers need to be told when they’ve shot their wad and lost.

            Otherwise it doesn’t matter. It’s not about me in any sense. It’s not even really about you. It’s about harmful crap that you spew.

          • Americana

            Basically, lying loser spammers need to be told when they’ve shot their wad and are totally derailed. I’d say you’d completely shot your wad when you called one of America’s youngest billionaires a crony capitalist. Carry on, Sir Spamalot!

          • Americana

            Ah, the definitive 6-part article that is the only source of knowledge about Capitalism that’s endorsed by objectivefactsmatter…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No dumbass. Exhibit the same or similar knowledge and you’re fine.

            The point is that you have no reason to continue ignorant rants when I gave you a very nice primer for someone at your miserable level of comprehension.

          • Americana

            (OFM) ;( It’s a shame you think you represent the best of capitalism at your level of intellectual function.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 4 days ago: “OFM) ;( It’s a shame you think you represent the best of capitalism at your level of intellectual function.”
            It’s a shame you don’t even have the first clue what capitalism is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact you couldn’t identify a full-blown billionaire capitalist…”

            You don’t even know what that means. OMG you are so dumb.

            Read the 6-part article as an intro to the discourse. OK dummy?

          • Americana

            Dummy, you can’t claim that a college-dropout w/a brilliant idea who’s turned that brilliant idea into a BILLION-DOLLAR company is a crony capitalist. You can’t recognize genuine capitalism at its most flagrant and you’re declaring me dumb? It’s getting pretty deep in here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 5 minutes ago: “Dummy, you can’t claim that a college-dropout w/a brilliant idea who’s turned that brilliant idea into a BILLION-DOLLAR company is a crony capitalist.”

            Moron, you can’t quote me saying that. But she might be. Evidently a lot of the terms confuse you and lead you to lash out.

          • Doc2Go

            “If the Democrats are moving in any direction, it’s because they see that other countries in the world have successfully followed X-Y-Z programs and they want to see similar programs in the U.S.”

            Really? Where? They do not exist. Socialism is an abject failure, around the world.

            “Sen. McCarthy was proven wrong more often than he was proven right. The fact you bring up Sen. McCarthy tells me that you’re not reading the contemporary political landscape for what it is.”

            Really? Proven by whom? Because he was an early and vocal opponent of Communism, many of the things he tried to warn us about had yet to pass, in his own time. You cannot have an accurate view of the current political landscape, with acknowledging that.

            No. I reject ALL of Socialism, as the demonstrable source of failure, around the world. It is a dangerous, irrational fantasy. “Socialism is a disease, which leads to terminal Communism”. I have never seen that statement disproved. Why grow CPUSA, when you can advance The Agenda and The Narrative, with the more palatable DNC? You are wearing out my patience, but that is evidently my own fault, so I will not hold you to account for it.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You don’t even know what communists want although you think you do. That’s why you can’t see the communist agenda. You’re part of it and to you it’s “common sense” to invoke the “happiness” clause of the constitution every time you’re triggered to by the Demagogic Party.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why are the Islam rumors such an incredibly eccentric blend of fact and fiction? Because the facts are Mr. Obama is choosing to fight ISIL and al Qaeda. Those facts outweigh what you’re shoveling into the contrarian bucket on the scales. If Pres. Obama intended to aid and abet Muslim extremists, there would have been no expansion and completion of the PRISM surveillance system, there would be no expansion of the drone attacks, there would be no American advisors on the ground in Iraq, and on and on and on…”

            See, you again prove you’re not paying attention. He doesn’t want “extremists.” he wants sharia under the rule of the jihadis that wear suits. He wants to let “extremists” simmer down. It’s not that he does the opposite of what is right, he simply has an idiotic theory so he won’t ever do what is right.

            There are more than two classes of “jihadi.” Each problem has to be dealt with according to reality. Launching a few missiles that those guys over there doesn’t mean 0′Bama is against the growth of sharia or even a caliphate hostile to US interests. I means that he expects in the long run that eventually some kind of global equilibrium will be reached by letting our enemies win some.

            It’s a very naive way of thinking. It’s something like assuming that sovereigns think like individuals think. Imagine a big park somewhere and some of the folks live by the river with fresh water. And they exploit the fact that they control all of the land adjacent to it. By not “sharing” they are setting the stage for conflict. They’re exploiting their good fortune. They have unearned wealth that is used to oppress others. That’s unwise.

            That’s a simple sketch to explain the neo-Marxist understanding of root causes of conflict. I don’t deny that such factors exist. I deny that wealth is always unearned. I deny that we can always look at people that appear needy and understand their anger as righteous resentment. I deny that you can take a top down approach to global conflict and say that if you even up distribution of wealth and resources that you can pretty much put everything else on a back burner because most if not all conflict is caused by material need and the rest is just the usual crackpot criminals that can’t help themselves. Therefore the way to bring “peace on earth” is to solve the “disparity problems” and then let local police take care of the criminals.

            If you take that worldview and apply it to this president’s policies, all of them make sense. If you agree with that worldview, then he’s great. Maybe he could do some things better in terms of “messaging” and getting others on board…but in terms of his strategies he’s a freaking genius from the perspective of Critical theories. He’s a radical president. No denying it. The question is whether we are entitled to challenge his radical thinking. And we are.

            And anyone that stands in the way with a mendacious approach, knowingly or not, is going to be confronted. The more vigor you put in to cloaking legitimate criticism, knowingly or not, the more vigorously you will be opposed.

            As far as 0′Bama’s view of Jihad, I think that the “harmony” of Indonesia is something that in his mind can be scaled up. I think he’s wrong. And I think anyone that stands in the way of legitimate criticism of his vision…knowingly or not…must be confronted.

            If you do not understand anything I’ve written here, think carefully before you craft your reply if you want to be taken seriously. If not…enjoy following your own personal Gruber around and we’ll all carry on like usual.

          • Americana

            Oh, lordy, here it is — fact does mate w/fiction! >>>> Pres. Obama wants sharia expressed by Muslim men in suits.<<<< I'd say that's hardly Pres. Obama's aim. Mr. Obama is well aware the Muslim world is facing a watershed moment for conflict between the traditional aims of Muslim religious and political hegemony vs the post-WW II Muslim world. The fact these Muslim insurgents are acting out their religious-based political perspectives toward their national governments and the regional demographics is seen by Mr. Obama as a threat to all. Jihadis may have been used as an international tool by several Muslim countries but now many of those countries have begun to see what they've unleashed.

            (objectivefactsmatter) "(Obama) doesn't want "extremists." he wants sharia under the rule of the jihadis that wear suits. He wants to let "extremists" simmer down. It's not that he does the opposite of what is right, he simply has an idiotic theory so he won't ever do what is right.

            If you've got a clear plan for "what is right" on the Muslim jihad front, let's hear it. I'm all ears and I'm sure any government afflicted w/a Muslim extremists would be willing to hear you out. Meanwhile, if you're slamming Pres. Obama for ineffectual plans but you can't offer him a reasonable plan to quell international jihad, then you're not a success at evaluating how to deal w/ISIL and al Qaeda and Muslim extremism.

            (objectivefactsmatter) There are more than two classes of "jihadi." Each problem has to be dealt with according to reality. Launching a few missiles that those guys over there doesn't mean 0'Bama is against the growth of sharia or even a caliphate hostile to US interests. I means that he expects in the long run that eventually some kind of global equilibrium will be reached by letting our enemies win some.

            Since when has Pres. Obama given any signs he's willing to allow a global Caliphate to take permanent root anywhere in the world or to allow sharia law? As for the growth of sharia in the Muslim world, that's a choice to be made at the societal level in any countries where Muslims are agitating for sharia. i believe the U.S. should insist on a more Western-based legal system and promote the long-term success that Turkey had as a secular Muslim state.

            I'm not a Marxist or a neo-Marxist in my worldview. There are ways to help people achieve success and stability in their own regions, regardless of how barren and non-life sustaining those regions at first appear. Look at some of the deserts of the world that have been shown to be harboring the rarest and most expensive rare earths. Look at the successful greening of the deserts that is being accomplished around the globe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “>>>> Pres. Obama wants sharia expressed by Muslim men in suits.<<<< I'd say that's hardly Pres. Obama's aim."

            You're clueless. Sharia can be just about anything. He thinks it can be reconciled with democracy in a multicultural community. Obviously you know nothing about sharia in Indonesia.

            "Mr. Obama is well aware the Muslim world is facing a watershed moment for conflict between the traditional aims of Muslim religious and political hegemony vs the post-WW II Muslim world."

            Watershed moment? No, that was at the peace conferences after WWI and the UN after WWII. And the Oslo Accords. And many similar "watershed" moments. Like ISIS gaining a toe (foot? leg?) hold in Iraq.

            "If you've got a clear plan for "what is right" on the Muslim jihad front, let's hear it. I'm all ears and I'm sure any government afflicted w/a Muslim extremists would be willing to hear you out. Meanwhile, if you're slamming Pres. Obama for ineffectual plans but you can't offer him a reasonable plan to quell international jihad, then you're not a success at evaluating how to deal w/ISIL and al Qaeda and Muslim extremism."

            I actually do. And I wrote the White House about it. It's a bit complex to explain here in one shot. I've explained bits and pieces over time here, but you don't pay attention.

            Diplomacy is very complicated. But basically what we need to do is fight terror groups, punish states that support them, and essentially follow the Bush doctrine with a lot more intelligence and at the same time not try to fool the American public that we don't have to tighten our belts until we've made significant progress.

            In terms of diplomacy, we need to express in clear terms that we do not consider sharia or Islam to be entirely compatible with Western values and rule of law. We spell out our terms for various trade and visa policies not to punish them for being Muslims but to explain that we have finite limits of tolerance and that they are absolutely welcome as American citizens but not to try to come and change our culture or laws. They must follow only legitimate processes. Group victim status will NOT be available to them! Ever! We're moving away from that entirely (or we should be trying to…but that's another topic).

            In pubic we signal the same thing without explicitly calling out Islam. We say things like separation of church and state is defined by the law, not the believer. And start following the damn Constitution without any consideration for political identity or "victim group" identity. If people hate Islam, so what? All of us must obey the laws. We're all equal before the law. Learn what Orwell tried to warn you about.

            Part of the problem, a big part, is that Muslims are seen always in terms of a victim group. We accommodate their aggression and talk about how we're getting blowback. True or not, "blowback" is part of life in general. We can discuss blowback from historical events calmly when there is no bloodshed. You don't start questioning your own moral imperatives in public while the battles rage. You just don't do that unless you as a private citizen have a strong feeling that we're doing something wrong. And then you'll get challenged and so forth. So I'm not expecting anything ideal.

            The point is that the DP (and all leftists) foment division because it suits their agenda. They don't give a damn about Islam because Muslims make an excellent victim group hammer against any dissenters that can be marginalized by painting as "bigoted."

            In Islamic culture, such appeasement emboldens them. I mean appeasement can embolden anyone but I agree some times appeasement in theory can be wise. But if you understand Islam as a rebuttal to Christianity and Judaism, you'll also understand that appeasement is seen as an invitation and sign that Allah is beckoning the brave and the faithful to wage jihad.

            As we start showing our resolve it will actually tend to dampen enthusiasm for jihad. Obviously if we "show resolve" by indiscriminately blowing things up, that will create unnecessary backlash. That's true anywhere. But appeasement is perhaps more dangerous than being too aggressive. My belief is that without leftist enablers, we could have led the ME to peace with us in the 1960s. I think that if we had been better informed, Bush I would have handled Hussein differently and not tried to bootstrap that in to a delusional vision of a "new world order." I think that broad coalition energized the secularists and the jihadis. We have not been able to take a smart approach because we're intensely divided at home. That's my theme.

            These notions of "social justice" as distinct from Constitutional justice are killing us. If you don't understand that discourse there is VERY LITTLE that you will understand here at FPM. My sense is that you do not understand the social justice discourse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not a Marxist or a neo-Marxist in my worldview.’

            How would you know?

            “There are ways to help people achieve success and stability in their own regions, regardless of how barren and non-life sustaining those regions at first appear. Look at some of the deserts of the world that have been shown to be harboring the rarest and most expensive rare earths. Look at the successful greening of the deserts that is being accomplished around the globe.”

            That’s right. And people that want to help “the world” should not simply vote for liars that promise magic economics through central planning. Get off your butt and do something. Put your own money and effort where your mouth is. And there are several crucial reasons for that.

            In any case, I’m not convinced that you know what neo-Marxism is.

          • Americana

            How would I know whether I’m a Marxist or neo-Marxist? Well, I know I’m not a Marxist because I’ve had a year-long running argument w/an extremely rabid Marxist professor. She’s declared me a non-Marxist. Coming from her, I take her assessment at face value. Neo-Marxism isn’t really anything more than Marxism refurbished for the late 20th and 21st centuries through all sorts of add-ons from various intellectual disciplines as well as the human touch of psychology and psychoanalysis, all in aid of explaining how the economic system works and the role of the individual within it and interacting w/it. I don’t consider myself a neo-Marxist or label myself w/any specific economic label.

            Who’s promised “magic economics through central planning” in the Obama administration? I make as many suggestions as occur to me to be viable and I usually forward them in written form to one of several groups w/which I’m in touch. I’m not going to be one of those who spends all her time moving round the globe trying to raise world standards to American standards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How would I know whether I’m a Marxist or neo-Marxist? Well, I know I’m not a Marxist because I’ve had a year-long running argument w/an extremely rabid Marxist professor. She’s declared me a non-Marxist.”

            That’s cute and hilarious. Was Trotsky a Marxist? I never asserted that you were a true believer. You’re a neo-Marxist dupe. Do you know what neo-Marxism is?

            “Neo-Marxism isn’t really anything more than Marxism refurbished for the late 20th and 21st centuries through all sorts of add-ons from various intellectual disciplines as well as the human touch of psychology and psychoanalysis, all in aid of explaining how the economic system works and the role of the individual within it and interacting w/it. I don’t consider myself a neo-Marxist or label myself w/any specific economic label.”

            Neo-Marxism is attempting to explain Marxism through the lens of history as it continues to unfold and discredit Marx. It’s about helping people with “false consciousness” understand “the truth” with mendacious methods and (allegedly) altruistic motives. Critical Race Theory is derived from neo-Marxism. Liberation Theology. Critical Religion Theory, basically all Critical theories attempt to replace Western notions of Critical Thinking with Critical (radical, change driven social) theories based on Critical Theory framework.

            As soon as your analysis is tilted by historic materialism and you decide that other factors are less relevant or not relevant at all, you’ve slid your way in to contributing to the neo-Marxist discourse.

            Of course some analysis doesn’t require any thoughts on historical materialism. But as soon as you start trying to predict how humans will react you are at risk of missing out on relevant factors. Maslow’s Hierarchy is a great example because it’s easy to see that it’s some times a useful paradigm. Is it a law? No way! Some times people use it or a derivative to drive their analysis. They ignore how cultural distinctions and ideology also shape behavior. Materialism is pretty good for explaining a lot of things. It’s very often bad at offering comprehensive explanations for how people choose to solve their problems. Instead when pushed the neo-Marxist will sort of get stymied and think that there are undiscovered genes and random mutations to explain why this guy will chop off a head when he’s hungry while the other guy will beg for food or get a job.

            You add up these kinds of flawed explanations and pretty soon you’re minimizing jihad and overlooking true root causes of problems in Ferguson and elsewhere.

          • Americana

            There you go again w/your labels. If you label someone a neo-Marxist, by god, they must be a neo-Marxist because YOU SAY SO. And, not only are they are neo-Marxist, but they’re a neo-Marxist DUPE. If you want me to pepper my statements w/large quantities of labels, just let me know. If you continue to throw a LABEL SALAD at me in every post, I will immediately begin returning the favor. Either argue didactically and factually or not, your choice. But if you argue from the perspective of denigrating your opponent simply by labels and assumptions, I’ll begin chewing you up and spitting you out in identical fashion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This isn’t working for me. Do what you want but I find very little value in conversing with you and I don’t think you’re getting anything from my efforts either.

          • Americana

            You’re certainly welcome to not engage me. All I’m asking is that you don’t attempt to label me w/labels you clearly find objectionable. This is especially true when you’re denigrating the very same philosophy you’ve just labeled me with. If you don’t understand why this kind of debate gambit isn’t legitimate, I can certainly write out a longer explanation. What you need to rectify in your posting style for this exchange to continue could easily be done if you had any interest in doing so.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, you need to respect people that clearly are in a position to teach you and to sit at their feet until you’re actually ready to debate. I mean you can do what you want, but playing endless games as if you’re qualified to defend the issues that you do…

            You simply do not realize how clear it is that you have no clue. I will explain in detail at the most relevant comment sub-thread. BRB.

          • Americana

            No, you need to respect the concept of free speech. You’ve unequivocally said that you’re not going to allow my free speech if you can find some way of isolating my comments from the general conversation. You’re calling my comments “spamming” just because my points don’t echo every other poster is an egregious misrepresentation of your understanding of free speech. You also need to stop elevating yourself above others out of egotism and hubris. Making the claim that you’re in the position “to teach (me) and (I should sit) sit at their feet until (I’m) actually ready to debate…” I’m laughing hysterically at your vanity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Whether or not I’m vain does not speak to the more salient issue of your ignorance.

          • Americana

            Anyone who resorts to calling someone else ignorant without successfully pointing out the other’s ignorance leaves their own ignorance on full display.

            By the way, talk about ignorance, where’d this thought of yours come from:

            (objectivefactsmatter) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I did successfully point out your ignorance. The problem is the receiving end.

            “By the way, talk about ignorance, where’d this thought of yours come from:
            (objectivefactsmatter) “If they (insurance companies) added no value they’d be bypassed unless the law required they be used.””

            It’s quite simple. If you’re not talking about a layer that is required by the government and some institution uses for whatever function, it’s only “siphoning” off it its own profits. It has to compete with others. It’s moot. Now if I own a company and I am accountable for performance and taking home profits, why would I add a layer of complexity that “adds no value” to the value chain? If it is required by the government, why are you blaming me or free market capitalism?

            It’s a kind of paranoid accusation that sort of forgets that making a profit is perfectly legitimate as compensation, renumeration, etc. and that if a company adds some “extra” layer, it’s only hurting itself. It can’t hurt you unless the government forces you to buy it or allows this institution to grow in to some kind of monopoly scenario.

            So without all of the mandates, it simply does not matter how an institution organizes itself as long as it’s not defrauding you. It’s weird that you guys use this “extra layer” argument because it’s irrational and makes an assumption that either comes from an intuitive sense that these “layers” are illegitimate based on Marxism or illegitimate because the government has already forced you to use these companies. So if there are extra useless layers, that’s the fault of the ACA supporters. Why make it sound like the ACA is solving the the problem with waste when it (or some previous intervention) is actually causing it?

            You totally do not follow any of this. You don’t trust “conservatives” and you read superficial rags like salon that sound somewhat sophisticated and you can use those talking points to bullshit other ignorant people but it won’t work against people that recognize the BS. Or maybe you read Forbes in a short article without understanding background and therefore you don’t get the legitimate counterpoints. Some times legitimate publishers will allow POV from dissenters because most readers are already briefed on the consensus views.

            Anyway, you don’t understand why your points are not valid.

            Let me do you a favor though. Let me give you the quasi legitimate talking points in favor of requiring healthcare for everyone. B

            By making health-care available to all, the total costs to the nation as a collective will go down because (in theory) people that have more choices for getting healthy will follow their own best interests and get inoculations, have wounds treated before they are serious and thus more expensive and so forth. And we’d like to see that kind of thing. There are some very good arguments for opening clinics paid for by taxpayers that simply offer essential health services free. And if somehow peole have lower healthcare costs, that takes the pressure off subsidies and lowers expenses for the Federal budget (or whoever was paying subsidies).

            How does that argument support the ACA? It doesn’t. It can in theory. Only if the ACA truly delivers a scenario where people both have better coverage for early treatment and those people have access to providers and the wisdom to take advantage of the changed conditions. Some of that will happen with the ACA. The problem is that it cost so much to get those theoretical benefits. It’s a scam.

            It’s a scam for wealth redistribution. (Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, land reform, charity, divorce or tort law.) And it’s a scam to additionally force policies to cover more in order to please certain political constituents. It’s NOT about cost control. It has bogus cost control mechanisms. Even Gruber admitted to just winging it. It’s a scam.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All I’m asking is that you don’t attempt to label me w/labels you clearly find objectionable.’

            No criticism allowed? Sure.

          • Americana

            I’m not asking you not to criticize. I’m asking you not to indulge in your brainless, knee-jerk label fests. I’d prefer to write posts that actually have brain content instead of inventing insults in response to your insults. If you prefer the brainless and effortless spewing out of effed labels, that’s a choice that I will eventually choose to honor in kind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not asking you not to criticize. I’m asking you not to indulge in your brainless, knee-jerk label fests.”

            If you don’t know what the labels mean, that’s not my problem. You should learn to ask respectfully if you don’t want to start up conflict. You throw around labels as pejoratives without even understanding them and you assume that I do the same.

            “If you prefer the brainless and effortless spewing out of effed labels, that’s a choice that I will eventually choose to honor in kind.”

            The difference is that I know what I’m talking about and you rarely do.

          • Americana

            Listen, kiddo, I’ve simply had it w/you and your self-righteous come ons. Forget the olive branch, I’m simply reaching for the labels from now on. You’re the ones who BEGAN THROWING THE LABELS around and you made darn sure they were as NEGATIVE and PEJORATIVE as you could make them. I don’t throw around labels and it’s NOT because I “don’t understand them”. I assume that you throw around the labels because you think that identifying your philosophical enemy will help you in your discussions by encouraging more pile-ons by like-minded individuals. However, as we’ve seen, some individuals eventually do recognize that they’re losing most of the battles and they retire from the field only to take the occasional strafing run to back a forward advance by someone else who’s more confident of himself. in close combat. If I didn’t know what I was talking about, you wouldn’t have turned tail and run away from the Benghazi discussion. You may think you can make up ground by switching your attack to the subject of capitalism but we’ll see. So far I’m not terribly impressed by the ammunition stockpile you’ve got.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Wait,

            You’re tired of labels that you understand – but you can’t actually demonstrate understanding because you’re too offended at the suggestion that you’re a communist?

            What is a communist? What does that label mean? What is economic fascism? What does “social justice” mean in a political context (IOW, what does it mean to demand social justice interventions from the government)?

            You’re still nothing but hot air.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So far I’m not terribly impressed by the ammunition stockpile you’ve got.”

            Another belly laugh. I actually find you more humorous than Robin Williams. He did have some amazing acting talents (scary range) but you make me laugh more often.

          • Americana

            Maybe it’s time for you to watch “Good Morning, Vietnam”? I’ll never forget the general in that film who told the anti-Robin Williams character to STFU. Some people have both brains and a funny bone, that general was one such guy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think I ever watched it.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, how often do you think throwing that “Neo-Marxist dupe” accusation at the people you disagree with is supposed to provide ‘value?’

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How often? I think it’s like planting seeds. You have to wait for the harvest. Whether it adds value that is immediately apparent…to you? Probably never. But there’s a reason for that. I’m confident that it does add value for the same reason that I have confidence when planting some kind of seed in the ground. I don’t need all of the seeds to thrive for it to be worth continuing the same practices.

            And when people do respond it shifts focus away from the emotional issues down to the root assumptions and worldview distinctions that might be entirely hidden to the dupes.

            See, your chum-comrade Americana just went off on me – even after I tried to explain precisely what I was talking about – and told me (using all caps) that pools of capital don’t add value in a “value chain.” During the entire conversation she thought it was valid criticism to say (rough paraphrase) “hey, insurance companies always redistribute wealth.” So what’s the problem with the government regulating it?”

            How can someone say that and claim to be familiar with the discourse on Marxism versus capitalism? If I don’t challenge these ideas, they’ll never even understand the criticism and will keep talking past people they disagree with. It’s just “common sense” (to Marxists and dupes) that banks do nothing, pooling money is “hogging resources” and adds no values. Allegedly. And so forth.

            All anyone needs to do is hold their ammo until they’re a lot surer about what they’re talking about and what the other guy is talking about and all of the conversations will become visibly more valuable instead of just regurgitation.

            Do you have a theory, just like your theory that I don’t like gays because I have strong ideas about how to deal with civil rights, that I like to give people a hard time and look for reasons to do it for my own amusement?

            Just like your theory that I was mistaken about the “immaculate conception of Jesus” because according to you immaculate conception can only refer to Mary’s conception. Well, the immaculate conception of >Mary< (note qualifier) refers only to Mary and her ancestry. That's true. But the origin is, as I explained to you before, the "immaculate" conception of Christ. This is an attempt to deify Mary by making her LIKE CHRIST in that way. So if what i say is true, how is it logical that Mary is like Christ but at the same time we can't describe Christ that way? Christ is the original example. ICM doctrine is a theory that Mary's birth was ALSO immaculate.

            I explained all of that to you. You kept resisting and in the end you gave up without acknowledging the simple logic of my explanations.

            Do I keep lists? Oh sure. Wait. No I don't keep lists on anything we discuss here. Nothing. I don't even need to search my own comment stream. But go ahead and project your own memory capabilities on to others and just make more assumptions.

            I thought you were a strong guy for processing actual evidence? No, you're good at jumping on people that deviate from the protocols that you expect. Other than that…you're weaker than you realize.

          • hiernonymous

            “Do I keep lists? Oh sure. Wait. No I don’t keep lists on anything we discuss here. Nothing. I don’t even need to search my own comment stream. But go ahead and project your own memory capabilities on to others and just make more assumptions.”

            You offered a list, so quite plainly, you maintain one. Whether you do so on scrap paper, in a file, or in your head, is neither here nor there. The interesting aspect to this is not any implied limitations to your memory, but the accumulation and categorization of grievances.

            Note how a brief comment engendered a long post that itemizes multiple conversations with multiple partners, to include an attempt to resurrect a discussion from over a year past that, itself, began as a digression. You’re not keeping lists? Okay, I’ll take your word for it.

            “I thought you were a strong guy for processing actual evidence? No, you’re good at jumping on people that deviate from the protocols that you expect. Other than that…you’re weaker than you realize.”

            Oh, dear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You offered a list, so quite plainly, you maintain one. ”

            main·tain

            mānˈtān/

            verb

            1.

            cause or enable (a condition or state of affairs) to continue.

            ad hoc

            ˌad ˈhäk/

            adjective & adverb

            formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “grievances”

            grievance

            [gree-vuh ns] Spell Syllables

            Synonyms

            Examples

            Word Origin

            noun

            1.

            a wrong considered as grounds for complaint, or something believed tocause distress:

            Inequitable taxation is the chief grievance.

            2.

            a complaint or resentment, as against an unjust or unfair act:

            to have a grievance against someone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Note how a brief comment engendered a long post that itemizes multiple conversations with multiple partners, to include an attempt to resurrect a discussion from over a year past that, itself, began as a digression. You’re not keeping lists? Okay, I’ll take your word for it.”

            The point is that you don’t seem to respond appropriately to patterns based on information that should be available to you.

            And I guess I’m a faster typer than you. It took no discernible effort whatsoever to create that ad hoc list. I do have very good coffee though so…anyway.

            I’m simply wondering if you ever adjust your tactics if after a certain amount of time it becomes clear that you often make incorrect assumptions. Ask yourself what you have learned in your time here. It seems like a valid question when you double down on straw men like using Joshua to defend the idea that believers are instructed to use it as a precedent to guide their own behavior.

            Get it?

            Or carry on with the nihilism. It’s still a free country.

          • hiernonymous

            “It took no discernible effort whatsoever to create that ad hoc list.”

            Precisely.

            “Get it?”

            Often.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Excellent.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And try not to be offended when I say that you’re weaker than you realize. I’m saying that so that you simply contemplate the idea that maybe you will get more from life and possibly from here if YOU also listen a bit more before you jump in. You think you’re “dampening jingoism” when a lot of what you do is interfering with valuable lessons while you defend people that want to keep the proverbial wax in their ears.

            It’s your right to do all of that. But if you love your patria, when you come to realize there is a better approach, I’d think you’d want to make some adjustments. That’s just my take.

          • hiernonymous

            “And try not to be offended when I say that you’re weaker than you realize.”

            Consider it done.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            See? We can cooperate some times.

          • hiernonymous

            If it pleases you to think of that as an example of cooperation, I can’t think of a reason to make an issue of it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’ve had better days, that’s for sure. But there’s always hope if you try to build on the successes (no matter how small) that you can see.

            Try it!

          • hiernonymous

            “You’ve had better days, that’s for sure.”

            I rather enjoyed this one; it’s not clear why you think it was anything less than satisfactory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why would you think I indicated that anything is not satisfactory?

            You’ve had better days. You can build on it too.

            Chin up, comrade! Stop being so paranoid by assuming worse than what the evidence shows.

            By the way, if you’re not busy and still on a roll, can you explain why terms like “xenophobe” or “Orwellian nationalist” are not bigoted but neo-Marxist, collectivist, etc. are somehow “othering” or something like that?

            I’m still confused about the various standards for judging bigotry in others. Often the standards themselves seem…bigoted.

          • hiernonymous

            “Why would you think I indicated that anything is not satisfactory?”

            ‘You’ve had better days’ generally means that something went wrong or was less than satisfactory on the day in question. As I found the day perfectly agreeable, it’s a sentiment I can’t share.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If the glass is half full, you should be satisfied but also looking to fill the glass higher if it suits you. It’s a philosophical question.

          • hiernonymous

            ” It’s a philosophical question.”

            Interesting that you think so.

            Good night!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’d be surprised if you disagree. Maybe after you’ve rested. Not that it’s worth intentionally remembering but life can be surprising.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 9 days ago: “Well, how often do you think throwing that “Neo-Marxist dupe” accusation at the people you disagree with is supposed to provide ‘value?’”
            It’s like planting seed. You can’t count the harvest on the same day. Part of neo-Marxism is cloaking it as something like “common sense.”

            http://plato.stanford.Edu/entries/critical-theory/

          • Americana

            I’ve NEVER MINIMIZED JIHAD nor written anything on FPM about FERGUSON. Don’t litter our discussion w/your suppositions about what I think on issues on which you’ve never read my perspective. It’s a very cheap debate tactic to throw in YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS about my thinking as if your knowledge of same is accurate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If I want to quote you I’ll quote you. If I want to give examples, I’ll do that too. It’s a separate thing.

            “It’s a very cheap debate tactic to throw in YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS about my thinking as if your knowledge of same is accurate.”

            Have you ever done word history research? I find it interesting and often more informative than just a modern dictionary. And you can do the same thing with ideas, even ideas that become so dominant that they are taken for granted as “common sense.”

            I’ve tried to help you understand the genealogy of certain ideas that seem like “common sense” and the only reason it seems that way is that so many people have been exposed to these ideas without understanding the implications just as we are taught when very young what certain essential words mean without understanding the etymology and therefore we have no way to understand the full range of possible meanings for that word. You want to remain ignorant on the genealogy of ideas that you take for granted.

            It’s a very common attitude. I guess you and others get offended so quickly that you don’t realize when someone like me offers you something of value.

          • Americana

            I don’t “get offended quickly.” I get offended quickly when someone cannot state their understanding of economic or political philosophies or whatever without throwing that very same label at the person to whom they’re directing the comment, or, worse and far more telling, claiming that the person “can’t possibly know the meaning of neo-Marxism.” Labeling someone as you do is a debate tactic that you should drop. I don’t know why it is you persist in labeling like this, but we each should have some intellectual distance from the subject that all parties should maintain in order for the least number of personal remarks to be made that derail the discussion.

            As for common sense ideas becoming dominant or dominant ideas seeming to be common sense, political concepts can mutate. There are reference points for the most pure form of a political concept but that can be melded or used as an ingredient in another political form. You’ve just told me in the above post that I don’t value what you’ve presented. That’s hardly the case just because I challenge some of your thinking.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t “get offended quickly.” I get offended quickly when someone cannot state their understanding of economic or political philosophies or whatever without throwing that very same label at the person to whom they’re directing the comment, or, worse and far more telling, claiming that the person “can’t possibly know the meaning of neo-Marxism.””

            Hello! If I say you’re a neo-Marxist, why do you act like I used an irrelevant pejorative? It’s your decision on whether it’s a pejorative, and it’s fundamental to the topic being discussed! You people are nuts! Right now you’re registering as a highly programmed, totally assimilated victim of leftist “education.” They want people to react like you so that you will not participate in rational analysis on certain topics. Like attitudes about “capital” and “capitalism.”

            Every comment that you make offers further proof to my assertions that you’re trying to resist by making it about respect or insults or propriety instead of demonstrating that you understand the criticism first of all and secondly that you can show how it’s not true. Sheesh. I could defend you better than you can defend yourself.

            You probably like to work hard and you like the idea that others will work hard too before asking for handouts. You like to think that for the most part people just want life to be fair. You’re find of right.

            You’re not a hateful leftist elite. You’re a tool. You’re a product of their mass indoctrination. It’s a competing culture that is deliberately trying to consume the host culture. They think this makes sense because of their views of capital.

            It is the Marxists and the dupes that caused every banking crash since the depression, and they might have had a hand in that crash as well, albeit indirectly. I assume. The thing is that if some other guy’s capital belongs to him, it’s none of your business if his bank crashes. And if the government hasn’t already forced conformity and so forth there is no reason to think that Bank A crashing will lead to Bank B crashing. We “toxicity” in financial institutions because we’ve forced it to act like an interconnected organism more than a group of various factions looking to create wealth.

            And I don’t even have to mention the potential that certain sovereigns planned schemes to deliberately crash capital markets. I don’t need to. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. Everything that I explained above is still relevant.

            Looking back today, it’s very easy to see that all of the problems that 21st century leftists complain about WRT capital and capitalism in America (and quite a bit elsewhere) have actually been caused by the Marxists and interventionist dupes.

          • Americana

            That’s not the point. The point is that by calling me by the very same label you are denigrating, you intentionally devalue my comments as they’re read by the FPM community instead of letting them read my posts and make their minds up while reading. They get to your second sentence where you’re telling them, “(Americana) You’re a neo-Marxist blah blah…” and that’s going to be their starting point and their ending point.

            It should be possible for anyone to write information-rich posts without throwing out any labels. I’ve never labeled you until today..and even then I didn’t label you in the same fashion you’ve attempted to label me. I can certainly start doing the same to you until you realize the error of your ways. However, if you aren’t willing to concede that “the error of your ways” might just BE YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS and ensuring your propaganda outweighs any thoughts in my posts, trying to convince you to adjust your debate style might just be a moot point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 28 minutes ago: “That’s not the point.”
            That what?
            “The point is that by calling me by the very same label you are denigrating, you intentionally devalue my comments as they’re read by the FPM community instead of letting them read my posts and make their minds up while reading. They get to your second sentence where you’re telling them, “(Americana) You’re a neo-Marxist blah blah…” and that’s going to be their starting point and their ending point.”
            You are trying to read minds. I’m using language that is clear enough for you to mount a defense if you choose to or you can go and do more research to see if you agree with me. if you think I leave you without options, that would only prove your ignorance. Why is that my fault? I’m supposed to adjust my arguments to make it “fair” for you to have an equal chance to win? What is this?
            You can cooperate or fight, but what I have done is not marginalize you but warn you that you need to look at the fount of your ideas. Like I said, when you make certain assumptions and build arguments on those assumptions, you may not know that it is the very foundation of your idea that is controversial. For example, what is your theory about why conservatives oppose the ACA? We’re mean? Selfish? Lazy? ALL of the common answers are related to Marxist assumptions about capital. If you look at the discourse and reconcile what the factions are saying the underlying controversies fall in to two categories; one is Marxism versus Western notions of freedom (including relatively strong private property rights) and the other is just about traditional homerism. But if you wade through the discourse and trace back to these foundations and truly figure out that, aha, this is based on POV about capital, not something that we can go in to a court of law and show it it violates someone’s rights or is somehow illicit by any non-Marxist measure, then you will learn and adjust your arguments along with having a vastly improved understanding of ALL sides of the discourse.
            What do you think critics say about Marx? That he’s satanic or something? He created this elaborate worldview and set of theories, a framework for sort of “proving” that having some people higher than other people economically is passe. And unnecessary. His theories basically suggest that when we all “wake up” we’ll realize that purging “greedy” people out of owning and controlling “production” that an elite class of rulers can manage these needs more fairly and efficiently.
            If you assume that he is correct and never question the possibility that he’s wrong, you focus on the next level of assumptions like “capitalism is innately unfair” and “dead capital” is “theft” and “wasteful” and so forth so if you hear something like “pooling capital is wasteful” or “banks don’t add value in any value chain” that is based on Marxism. And neo-Marxism is all about keeping up and adapting the ideology to fit unfolding history and to protect the ideas from evolving criticism. Neo-Marxism is also about using this worldview to critique society as it is and to provide a path to “positive change” where it is simply assumed that if you hand over enough of your personal sovereignty (private property rights and liberty to critique the regime) that some kind of blissful Utopia will arrive soon after.
            The most visible example of a neo-Marxist “Critical Theory” is Critical Race Theory. CRT was created on a Marxist framework. That doesn’t mean it has nothing valuable to say. It means it’s dangerous to accept CRT uncritically on any level.
            If it’s more important to you to “win” a “fair” online debate then you need a place that puts some kind of handicap on some of the users. You should worry about the best ideas winning and not take it personally. Why do you take it personally?

          • Americana

            I have written many times that I’ve got ongoing fights w/Marxists and that I don’t credit Marxism w/being the means of economic salvation for the 21st century. I’m not sure how I can be any more clear than that about my feelings about his contributions to economics. As for me not taking these debates personally, I DON’T take them personally but I well understand debate tactics and I understand COMPLETELY how one can slant the debate in one’s favor by claiming the other person is a Marxist or a neo-Marxist. DON’T DO IT. It’s a simple request and if you write English, it should be an easy thing to accomplish.

            As for whether the ACA is harming the American economy, I’d say there are many ways to look at health insurance as it plays a role in our economy and our businesses. The issue of where the money must come from to support the individual insured is the same whether we have everyone insured or only some insured who then demand health care under indigent circumstances. Those individuals who’ve previously been thrown out of the insurance pools because of exhausting their benefits STILL RECEIVE some health care via other means. The money for their care comes from somewhere and it’s not at all voluntary.

            Should we have greater demands placed on healthy living? Oh, but that’s intruding on our individual freedoms! The reduction in health care costs has to come from somewhere and many of those obvious reductions are not seen as being popular. They’re being depicted as forcing individuals to actively maintain their health or they’re being identified as death panels or any number of other distasteful things. You had the nerve to write that “it’s life” and “sh*t happens” as if there’s nothing wrong w/YOU writing that but if I were to write that, it’s the end of the world. The largest portion by far of our health care costs go to end of life care. Analyzing how to best reduce and manage costs during that period is one of the most misunderstood and most partisan and most vilified aspects of health care.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/end-of-life-health-care.html

            From the above link:

            Three years ago, at the height of the debate over health care reform, there was an uproar over a voluntary provision that encouraged doctors to discuss with Medicare patients the kinds of treatments they would want as they neared the end of life. That thoughtful provision was left out of the final bill after right-wing commentators and Republican politicians denounced it falsely as a step toward euthanasia and “death panels.”

            Fortunately, advance planning for end-of-life decisions has been going on for years and is continuing to spread despite the demagogy on the issue in 2009. There is good evidence that, done properly, it can greatly increase the likelihood that patients will get the care they really want. And, as a secondary benefit, their choices may help reduce the cost of health care as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re still BSing and wasting my time. It may be entertaining for you but it does nothing for me or anyone else that has a much more advanced understanding. Why should the entire site strive to accommodate you when you’re so inflexible yourself?

          • Americana

            You’ve got a much more advanced understanding than I do?? Hahaha, you’re the one who’s BSing. You’re a DISGRACE to AMERICAN VALUES. You wouldn’t be suggesting I’m filibustering by posting my LEGITIMATE commentary if you believed in free speech and, since free speech is one of our most valuable rights, you’ve thereby outed yourself as being un-American at the most fundamental level.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Should we have greater demands placed on healthy living? Oh, but that’s intruding on our individual freedoms! ‘

            Yes it is – you bloody fascist.

          • Americana

            Hohoho. No, I’m not a fascist, I’m just pointing out the Catch-22 of claiming you really want health care costs contained but looking at the most obvious choices of containment — raising healthier people — is off the books because “it’s fascist.” The Greeks saw the need for a healthy mind in a healthy body. What was good for them should also be the present standard. However we achieve a healthy mind in a healthy body can certainly be achieved by voluntary means.

            Why do we need to attack all aspects of having a healthy population? Because we’ve shown ourselves that we’re ABSOLUTELY ON THE WRONG TRACK for achieving a healthy population w/whatever we’re doing now. After all, we’ve got an increasing military threat that may require hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans to be physically ready to take on the jihadi challenge if the jihad actually gains critical territory. The U.S. Armed Forces makes soldiers do calisthenics, is that “FASCIST”? The U.S. Armed Forces makes recruits take 5-mile runs daily, is that “FASCIST”? No, more like life-saving in advance of the threat they may face. Encouraging healthy living is the same thing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Greeks saw the need for a healthy mind in a healthy body. ”

            OMG will you stop with the pedantic bullshit? Health is good. We all agree. You’re arguments are already chaotic enough that iserting petty pedantic lectures is just too much.

            “Why do we need to attack all aspects of having a healthy population? Because we’ve shown ourselves that we’re ABSOLUTELY ON THE WRONG TRACK for achieving a healthy population w/whatever we’re doing now.”

            Having agreement that “health is good” doesn’t prove that any of your policy suggestions help anyone with their health except that you support a Ponzi scheme that provides for a few people while ruining (or threatening) an industry. If you want to help people, figure out the real costs and ask for the money. Don’t enter in to massive Ponzi schemes because you think you’re one of the people that will gain. We don’t need a massive state actively mediating every transaction to perform charity.

          • Americana

            The threat to the health insurance industry has always been there for any thinking person.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Ahhh. You’re the thinker and I’m not.

            Keep the comedy coming.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “After all, we’ve got an increasing military threat that may require hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans to be physically ready to take on the jihadi challenge if the jihad actually gains critical territory.”

            Uh huh. And?

            “The U.S. Armed Forces makes soldiers do calisthenics, is that “FASCIST”?”

            Is that a serious question? It would be fascism if you hired some private company that was largely regulated (if not owned) by the state to study just the right way to perform the exercise and then require citizens that did not sign up for the military work to perform these exercises. That would be fascism.

            “The U.S. Armed Forces makes recruits take 5-mile runs daily, is that “FASCIST”?

            No. That’s an essential component of doing a good job. It’s fascist to tell citizens that they must do it though.

            “No, more like life-saving in advance of the threat they may face.”

            Erm…

            “Encouraging healthy living is the same thing.”

            Not exactly. You’re not “encouraging” anyone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not a fascist, I’m just pointing out the Catch-22 of claiming you really want health care costs contained ”

            You say you’re not a fascist but you want the government to “contain” healthcare costs? And you think I want that too?

            Do you realize that when you make such remarks that you’re glibly deciding that while it’s AOK that unskilled workers can demand that the government require workers starting pay to be no less than $15 an hour that it’s also AOK for the government to put caps on how much some of the most talented Americans can charge for their goods and services? You don’t see the conflict there?

            The pattern is to make demagogic appeals to French notions of egalitarianism or equality of condition.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fortunately, advance planning for end-of-life decisions has been going on for years and is continuing to spread despite the demagogy on the issue in 2009. There is good evidence that, done properly, it can greatly increase the likelihood that patients will get the care they really want. And, as a secondary benefit, their choices may help reduce the cost of health care as well.”

            You have no business empowering the government to mediate or intervene in such decisions. You’re too stupid to even realize that’s what you’re asking for.

          • Americana

            This is/was the decision of the families involved, it’s got nothing to do w/the government. What happens physically w/end 0f life care was described to them, they chose to THINK, perhaps for the VERY FIRST TIME, what they honestly would want to undergo for medical procedures at that moment when they’re facing death and it can’t be staved off any longer.

            You obviously did not read the story.

          • Americana

            Since you haven’t replied to the other post, I’ll revise the writing so you understand what I wrote. **This is NOT THE GOVERNMENT MAKING THESE CHOICES about end-of-life care.** The patients and families of those facing end-of-life care are the ones BEING EMPOWERED by being told what is involved w/various procedures, they’re told what the upsides and the downsides to those procedures are, and they’re asked to give advance consent to procedures they WANT and DON’T WANT. It’s basically a pre-extremis agreement that makes the last months/weeks/days of someone’s life potentially far more pleasant than making such decisions under the stress of the moment. Surely, you’re not too stupid to even realize that these agreements are between the patients and their families and their doctors and that the government doesn’t enter into the picture at all?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “**This is NOT THE GOVERNMENT MAKING THESE CHOICES about end-of-life care.** The patients and families of those facing end-of-life care are the ones BEING EMPOWERED by being told what is involved w/various procedures, they’re told what the upsides and the downsides to those procedures are, and they’re asked to give advance consent to procedures they WANT and DON’T WANT. ”

            You don’t understand the interventions. You’re right that the government is not removing feedback. People will have involvement but the menu will change. By reducing the choices in the market, and by having such a dominant influence in what kinds of procedures will be rewarded in the marketplace, the government will have a huge impact in the choices available overall and to any given individual. Which is not to say they’ll be targeted but that Pottery Barn rules apply. If you impact what is available to the detriment of the market, you have hurt people.

          • Americana

            Oh, and end-of-life decisions are best decided by insurance agents rather than by patients, their families and their doctors???

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You really are not getting any of this. How can the insurance companies interfere unless they’re empowered to by the doctor and the patient?

            Oh, the government forces us to have insurance and determines that some policies are junk and applies magic formulas that says this process is not worth paying for therefore you must select from our “menu” and what choices do you have then when you want to look for a different policy that used to cover those things that you want?

            And even if you have cash, because of the government’s regulations they have already killed that product or service by limiting who can afford it when they changed what is covered rather than allowing a free and diverse marketplace to organically choose winners and losers.

            In a free and diverse market, the insurance company does not have the final say on anything unless the patient has agreed in advance what will and won’t be covered. Even then, in a free and diverse marketplace, more choices are available for lower costs.

            The are only a few ways the government can really reduce costs in the short term and when they do that, they’re impacting quality in the long run. For example reducing patent terms. That makes some things cheaper but also kills or discourages investment for future product development. But no problem because the magic government can take over research and development like they do in Cuba or China.

          • Americana

            Here you go again, writing something whose import you really don’t want to be the one to have written under your own name:

            (OFM) “How can the insurance companies interfere unless they’re empowered to by the doctor and the patient?”

            The insurance companies are able to interfere because you’ve contracted w/them to interfere through the insurance mediation process. When you sign a health insurance contract, you’re granting the insurance company the right of mediation “on your behalf,” which is really on behalf of the insurance company. Surely you’re not going to try to keep arguing this point?

            Here you go again, you invent scenarios and attempt to portray the government insurance plans as being radically different from the other previous plans while the only essential difference is that those plans now include more than they did under previous insurance plans. Once more, you threaten the U.S. health care sector would devolve to that of Cuba or China. The insurance agencies interfere

            In a “free and diverse market as applied to health insurance,” we would all be aware of the rip-offs and no-benefits practices of insurance agencies. Insurance plans that delivered none of the crucial benefits that were needed at the time of illness would be taken to court and exposed for what they are. The insurance agencies that routinely refused treatments on the first, the second and the third and fourth attempts to secure those treatments would be notified they’re not to continue this practice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >(OFM) “How can the insurance companies interfere unless they’re empowered to by the doctor and the patient?”

            Americana Rosso: “The insurance companies are able to interfere because you’ve contracted w/them to interfere through the insurance mediation process.”

            Wait a minute. How do they get these contracts when free people don’t want them?

            http://dictionary.reference.Com/browse/contract

            noun

            1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

            2. an agreement enforceable by law.

            3. the written form of such an agreement.

            4.the division of law dealing with contracts.

            So they >are< empowered by the doctor and patient to "interfere" or mediate.

            Where does your confusion come from? Where does your attitude come from?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Here you go again, you invent scenarios and attempt to portray the government insurance plans as being radically different from the other previous plans while the only essential difference is that those plans now include more than they did under previous insurance plans. ”

            Oh, the “junk plan” narrative. We removed cars from the marketplace but replaced them with better cars designed by Gruber Engineering and Design Studio.

            Utopia here we come!

            What if I don’t like your version of “better?” I’m screwed?

            Eh. You have to break a few eggs. Right?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Once more, you threaten the U.S. health care sector would devolve to that of Cuba or China. The insurance agencies interfere”

            I can guess what you’re trying to imply but I won’t bother. Your credibility is zero. I’m just in cleanup mode right now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In a “free and diverse market as applied to health insurance,” we would all be aware of the rip-offs and no-benefits practices of insurance agencies.”

            One doesn’t need to be omniscient in order to take responsibility for one’s own free decisions.

            http://www.etymonline.Com/index.php?term=caveat+emptor

            caveat emptor Latin, literally “let the buyer beware;” see caveat and second element of exempt (adj.).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Insurance plans that delivered none of the crucial benefits that were needed at the time of illness would be taken to court and exposed for what they are.”

            Free markets combined with rule of law. Yes that happens. Not as much as you’d like.

            I’d like more of it too but we’ve created several generations of idiot savant state dependents. We’ve created citizens that yearn for more state power to bring them “progress.” Naturally they’re delusional. But how would you know that? Not really possible at this time.

          • Americana

            Free markets combined w/rule of law? You obviously didn’t read my post about a car insurance agent I had who claimed I was at fault in a rear-end collision. Although the two scenarios are somewhat different, the UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE remains the same — DON’T PAY CLAIMS or ALLOW CLAIMS UNLESS FORCED TO.

            The agent claimed I was at fault in a rear-end collision where I had the time to check my rear-view mirror, see that the following driver WASN’T BRAKING, see that his head was turned, I glanced in the direction he was glancing in and saw he was LOOKING AT THREE WOMEN and THEIR BUTTS. I had the time so I glanced over at the oncoming traffic lanes and then I took my foot off the brake because I didn’t want to have whiplash (he was still doing 30 mph). After he’d struck my truck and pushed me across the entire intersection and another 25 feet down the street, he got out of his car and said, “We don’t really need to call the police.” I demurred and when the policeman came, I got the guy to admit that he’d been looking at three women’s butts on the sidewalk. The policeman ticketed the guy and completely exonerated me in this accident. The Small Claims judge also exonerated me and laughed hysterically when I presented a copy of the police report. The Small Claims judge also excoriated my insurance agent for his behavior and his misrepresentation about my culpability in a rear-end collision.

            My insurance agent had the nerve to say, “The other driver said you’d stamped on your brakes.” Now if you can explain how my insurance agent could deny my claim and believe this other guy when I had time to see what the other drive was looking at and that the guy admitted it to the policeman and it was in the police report, you’ll undertand why I KNOW the very same illegal tactics are being used in health insurance scenarios.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Free markets combined w/rule of law? You obviously didn’t read my post about a car insurance agent I had who claimed I was at fault in a rear-end collision.”

            So rule of law failed? Is that your claim? Or are you some kind of god that avoids being biased when discussing how victimized by the world you are? But if you are a god how do people exploit you in this way? You must have omniscience without omnipotence. It must be painful.

            Your story does make me pout and snivel a little. At the end of the day all I can do is stipulate that people get involved in things that make them unhappy and leave them >feeling< like victims. Like the Mike Brown protesters, OWS, communist revolutionaries, etc. Oh they feel it alright. Jihadis have feelings too. Everyone has feelings.

          • Americana

            No, you’re Wrong Way Corigan again. It wasn’t the rule of law that failed me. My car insurance agent FAILED ME. He LIED about the rules in a rear-end collision, he COLLUDED w/the other insurance agency, and he attempted to DEFRAUD ME about my future car insurance status. Rule of law is what SAVED ME and paid the claim when I finally said I’d take the other driver to court. Why couldn’t the insurance agency have suggested that instead of attempting to blame me for the accident and consequently drive up my premium? Just how dumb do insurance agencies think we are?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, you’re Wrong Way Corigan again. It wasn’t the rule of law that failed me. My car insurance agent FAILED ME. He LIED about the rules in a rear-end collision, he COLLUDED w/the other insurance agency, and he attempted to DEFRAUD ME about my future car insurance status. ”

            So rule of law did not fail but you need new laws because – why?

            “Why couldn’t the insurance agency have suggested that instead of attempting to blame me for the accident and consequently drive up my premium? Just how dumb do insurance agencies think we are?”

            I don’t actually care. I know how to protect my own rights and your example does nothing except prove that your expectations are out of line and based on Utopian expectations and arguments promoted by communists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Free markets combined w/rule of law? You obviously didn’t read my post about a car insurance agent I had who claimed I was at fault in a rear-end collision. Although the two scenarios are somewhat different, the UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE remains the same — DON’T PAY CLAIMS or ALLOW CLAIMS UNLESS FORCED TO.”

            ‘I find flaws in the world —> hence communism is the solution!’

          • Americana

            I’ve never written anything remotely like your last sentence. Either joust w/me intellectually on the basis of WHAT I’VE ACTUALLY WRITTEN or not. But your superimposing your thoughts and biases on my posts is pretty foolish.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The insurance agencies that routinely refused treatments on the first, the second and the third and fourth attempts to secure those treatments would be notified they’re not to continue this practice.”

            Not necessarily. You have this habit of just assuming that the citizen consumer is always the victim if you want to make a hero out of the state and vilify the professionals.

            You yearn for a nanny state. You want the state to be your daddy and mommy. And some times your rich uncle if you “really need” something and you convert this in to a perceived entitlement.

          • Americana

            What do you mean “not necessarily”? I’ve got three friends who’ve left the insurance industry because they found it horrifying they were told to do this. They did it, for YEARS, and then they decided they’d heard enough misery from patients who didn’t know whether they’d be allowed to have the treatments they’d been advised to have BY THEIR DOCTORS.

            I don’t “yearn for a nanny state”. I want the U.S. to realize that our current health insurance system is insufficient for the modern industrialized world. However, the insurance industry doesn’t want the system to change in any way. And there are some who’ve been able to convince many around the U.S. that the system is fine. It may be fine for those still employed by larger corporations and companies but it’s not fine for the vast majority of Americans and that is a situation that seems to only be getting worse as the American economy continues to flounder.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana • 5 minutes ago: “What do you mean “not necessarily”? I’ve got three friends who’ve left the insurance industry because they found it horrifying they were told to do this. ”
            So what? People quit fast food in disgust all the time. Now that has to be run by the state?

          • Americana

            Different industry, different scale of importance, entirely different ethical implications, entirely different effects on the nation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Plenty of valid analogs for those who are not willfully blind.

          • Americana

            Valid analogies will never be your forte, in that case.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Well, you are the ultimate judge. I’ll just accept your word for it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “They did it, for YEARS, and then they decided they’d heard enough misery from patients who didn’t know whether they’d be allowed to have the treatments they’d been advised to have BY THEIR DOCTORS.”

            This testimony does zero for you. There are several predictable explanations for this. Nobody likes being involved in unpleasant tasks. Falling short of Utopia is not necessarily an indication of some nefarious activities going on. Can’t you understand?

            “I don’t “yearn for a nanny state”. I want the U.S. to realize that our current health insurance system is insufficient for the modern industrialized world.”

            You and all of the other communists are so much smarter. You know just what we need, don’t you. It’s one thing to imagine you “realize” something and other thing to be right. This entire conversation proves that your “realizations” are based on nothing more than your delusions.

            “However, the insurance industry doesn’t want the system to change in any way.”

            Absurd! Government regulations stifle change. Free enterprise pressures and rewards positive change.

            And stop anthropomorphizing”industry.” Why don’t you say something like “humanity refuses to change?”

            “And there are some who’ve been able to convince many around the U.S. that the system is fine. It may be fine for those still employed by larger corporations and companies but it’s not fine for the vast majority of Americans and that is a situation that seems to only be getting worse as the American economy continues to flounder.”

            Yes. Of course. Successful people develop false consciousness. They’re taken in by the delusion of free market capitalism and liberty. Why won’t they realize that the big state can fix everything if they just get over these stupid ideas about liberties? Liberties lead to pain and suffering and sadness. You CAN’T get on the road to Utopia if people are driving around chaotically with all of that independence. The stupid ants don’t know what they need.

            false consciousness

            noun

            1. a Marxist theory that people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are; the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

            2. any belief or view that prevents a person from being able to underst and the true nature of a situation.

          • Americana

            Free enterprise rewards innovation when everyone knows what the innovations are and has those innovations available to them in their own state. That’s not how insurance operates. It rarely changes anything about its practices and when it changes anything, those things are changed relative to the expected demographics of the industry and aren’t meant to take into account aspects of the industry the insurance companies don’t want to know about. Like throwing 49 million Americans off the insurance rolls. That’s a figure that Doc2Go disputed, by the way, because it’s much harder to argue about the issue when the actual numbers of Americans in distress are known to all.

            I’m not anthropomorphizing the insurance industry, by the way, they fought these changes of the ACA every step of the way. They had financial reasons for making the decisions that forced this reformation process through Congress. It’s rather odd that you’re pretending that free market change could reform such an entrenched industry that didn’t have any means of individual citizens grappling w/it and that such massive change had to come from the largest legislative body within the U.S. rather be driven by individual citizens. After all, if 49 million Americans don’t matter to the insurance industry, then how are the other 280 million Americans supposed to affect change piecemeal by the free choice method? I guess by the year 2080 we might have some reasonable plans and have everyone insured but until then, what’s your plan??? Or, rather, what was intended to be the plan of the insurance industry for those 49 million Americans??

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            If you want, you never have to get an agent involved. I’ve explained this already.

          • Americana

            Your line about the Marxists “causing every banking crash since the Great Depression” makes me curious how you then explain the CRASHES in the AMERICAN ECONOMY prior to Marx ever formulating his economic views? Care to give that a shot?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your line about the Marxists “causing every banking crash since the Great Depression” makes me curious how you then explain the CRASHES in the AMERICAN ECONOMY prior to Marx ever formulating his economic views?”

            Karl Marx
            Philosopher

            Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, social scientist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Wikipedia
            Born: May 5, 1818, Trier, Germany
            Died: March 14, 1883, London, United Kingdom

            http://www.history.Com/topics/great-depression

            The Great Depression (1929-39) was the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world. In the United States, the Great Depression began soon after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors. Over the next several years, consumer spending and investment dropped, causing steep declines in industrial output and rising levels of unemployment as failing companies laid off workers. By 1933, when the Great Depression reached its nadir, some 13 to 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half of the country’s banks had failed. Though the relief and reform measures put into place by President Franklin D. Roosevelt helped lessen the worst effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s, the economy would not fully turn around until after 1939, when World War II kicked American industry into high gear.

            Anyway…

            http://teachinghistory.Org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/24579

            You didn’t hear me say that the world was Utopian before Marx. I’m asserting that he made it a lot worse. And the kind of interventions he advocated were not invented by him. But in America we never had a sovereign investment fund. The government was a relatively big player because of public works projects and it has a big budget, so the government needs to be a responsible player. But the logic of your question seems to suggest that you still don’t understand the discourse in free markets versus having governments intervene without good cause.

            If all you’re going to do is throw tantrums and not take responsibility for learning, this will be a waste of time. So don’t make stupid statements until you do understand and then nobody will have a reason to refer to you as a neo-Marxist dupe.

            There was a pretty good article though on FPM. Maybe if you read that we can talk about your sincere questions when you’re ready.

            Where is that thing…

            Ahhh…

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-i/

          • Americana

            My question was how do you explain the long cyclical crashes that dot the early history of the U.S.? Capitalism has boom and bust cycles that sometimes must be handled by government intervention and sometimes are best left to process their way through the system on their own. My question has nothing to do w/Karl Marx by the way so there’s really no need for all your sighing and drama nor is there any need to post his biography as if that explains the capitalism boom and bust cycle.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Capitalism has boom and bust cycles that sometimes must be handled by government intervention and sometimes are best left to process their way through the system on their own.”

            Here is what you’re missing. This “capitalism” that is “boom and bust” is not yours to manage. The only reason the government has any interest in stable “capitalism” is to concern about stable income from taxing it. That’s a far far cry from justifying any interventionism at all, never mind “social justice” interventions. “Capital” is not (generally speaking) public money. And capital that is owned by the public can be managed by the designated officials and they accept the risks of their own enterprise.

            But the whole Marxist framework flips everything around to “explain” why the public should own “capital” to be “fully democratic.” Which is complete BS because we’re a constitutional republic with democratic elections. We never promised the things that the French revolutionaries demanded. And their nonsense doesn’t work. And most of the justifications used by Marx don’t even apply to the USA.

            But you use this framework to argue that the government is charged with “social justice.” What complete nonsense!

          • Americana

            This is pretty fascinating. Suddenly, Benghazi is being sidelined by you deciding to switch the subject back to capitalism.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s a very common attitude. I guess you and others get offended so quickly that you don’t realize when someone like me offers you something of value.”

            In a free market economy, while the seller can ask any price he wishes, it is the market, not he, that determines the value of the product or service.

            You, apparently, get offended when the market does not value your product or service as you think it should.

            By the logic you are employing on these tirades of yours, that hint of dissatisfaction with the market has earned you a lecture on economics and an accusation of being a Marxist. It’s this fanatical misapplication that, in part, drives down the market value of your offering.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In a free market economy, while the seller can ask any price he wishes, it is the market, not he, that determines the value of the product or service.”

            Sort of. You’re not compelled to buy the product so the seller has not set the price until you agree. The seller has an offer. You accept it or move on. So yes, “the market” does set pricing dynamically. The buyer(s) individually and collectively are an active part of that process.

            “You, apparently, get offended when the market does not value your product or service as you think it should.”

            That makes no sense whatsoever. I’m offended that idiots think that instead of declining an offer and looking around or accepting that they can’t afford what they want, they agitate in the name of “fairness” and ask the government to set price controls or some other magical intervention to “fix” this alleged problem.

            “By the logic you are employing on these tirades of yours, that hint of dissatisfaction with the market has earned you a lecture on economics and an accusation of being a Marxist.”

            I’m a little confused about this paragraph. Who is dissatisfied with the market? Is that supposed to be me? There are certain concepts and perspectives that can be traced to Marx. If you think those concepts are merely “scientific” or “natural law” or “common sense” or some bullshit like that, you’re one of the dupes. As I have explained many times. I know what it felt like for people trying to straighten out dogmatic thinkers when the telescope was invented, then the microscope and so forth. If you preach Marxist dogma even without attributing it to him, I’ll probably call you on it.

            “It’s this fanatical misapplication that, in part, drives down the market value of your offering.”

            As in any free market, value is determined by the buyer when he accepts an offer. All you can say is that you decline to accept my offer. You’re not sitting in a place of judgment that allows you to decide the value others place on my advice. You can only speak for the value that you find. Confusion on this point is exactly what leads to demands for price controls and homogenized marketplaces. Which is more or less the road to what the Soviets had.

            If you don’t understand the logic of something you read, it’s foolish to always assume the problem is the author.

          • hiernonymous

            H: “…the seller can ask any price he wishes…”

            OFM: “…the seller has not set the price…the seller has an offer…”

            Sort of, indeed.

            “That makes no sense whatsoever.”

            You’re right, if you don’t understand the logic of something you read, it’s foolish to always assume the problem is the author. You could have saved yourself the trouble of some unnecessary and misapplied pedantry, and some apparently affected incomprehension, by reading the comment in the context of the selected quote.

            You can work it out. Cheers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I do understand your point and it is valid, I just finished it for you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How would I know whether I’m a Marxist or neo-Marxist? Well, I know I’m not a Marxist because I’ve had a year-long running argument w/an extremely rabid Marxist professor. She’s declared me a non-Marxist. ”

            I once joked about Marxism being like radiation. You rarely know when you’re poisoned until it gets very serious and people around you start panicking.

          • Americana

            Well, the lights are going off all around you and there are alarm bells all over the darn joint but I’m not sneering at you and attempting to attach labels to you just because the radiation alarms are blasting… But that’s not the way to success in debate here, look at Pete’s brainless tactics…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you have an analogy and now you need to define what it means. I’m listening.

            Use any labels you like. Say anything you wish that will help me understand what you want to say. I’m not delicate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Since when has Pres. Obama given any signs he’s willing to allow a global Caliphate to take permanent root anywhere in the world or to allow sharia law?”

            His whole approach signals that he thinks sharia is malleable (which it is) via open discourse (not really like you think). Of course he doesn’t give a rat’s behind about a Caliphate. Why should he? What’s wrong with a “moderate” Caliphate? No big deal. In no time at all they’ll be running around trying to get reelecting and forget all about exporting jihad. Just like Indonesia. Or something.

            “As for the growth of sharia in the Muslim world, that’s a choice to be made at the societal level in any countries where Muslims are agitating for sharia.”

            We should not do anything to minimize the way anyone understands the risks.

            “i believe the U.S. should insist on a more Western-based legal system and promote the long-term success that Turkey had as a secular Muslim state.”

            Wait, what? It’s not clear if we’re bumping in to more of your naiveté or you’re trying to admit that we’ve F ‘ed in our dealings with Turkey. Actually Turkey has a great set of lessons for us that just about everyone is ignoring. Taking a hard look at what went right and what went wrong there could give us excellent insights. But…we won’t. Because “Islam-o-phobia.”

          • Americana

            There’s no reason to avoid analyzing the pros and cons of Islam. But I’ll tell you when the analysis stops and when it becomes something different.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s no reason to avoid analyzing the pros and cons of Islam. But I’ll tell you when the analysis stops and when it becomes something different..”

            And what makes you think you can accomplish that better than me?

          • Americana

            I’ve never said I can accomplish such an analysis better than you. It’s just I don’t consider advocacy of worldwide genocide of Muslims regardless of their involvement w/terrorism to be a serious analysis of our options. Reading a constant refrain calling for genocide of billions of Muslims isn’t a serious analysis of the problems w/Islam nor is it a feasible solution. Not that you are one of those advocating genocide, your ideas seem to be somewhat along the lines of those within reason.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Nobody wants to kill all Muslims. These guys and others just some times want to make the threat so the jihadis will know that they should not expect to kill us or bring sharia to the USA. It’s actually normal behavior in the face of threats.

            Grow up. It’s bar talk.

          • Americana

            It’s not just “bar talk.” It’s talk that is giving ammunition to jihadists. Especially when it reaches the fervor Drakken and many others exhibited when he’d say kill every one of them, men, women and children…and then lots of others would pile on w/similar sentiments. If you don’t see how this defeats the purpose of certain discussions about immigration form, about overall size of the Muslim demographic within the U.S., etc., then I’ll write it out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 5 hours ago: “It’s not just “bar talk.” It’s talk that is giving ammunition to jihadists.”

            Life gives them ammunition. Anything can be exploited. On balance, it discourages them to know we plan on resisting. You have no clue about Islamic culture. It creates strong currents of fatalism. Especially when it comes to deciding about jihad. Standing up to them rhetorically is a force to moderate them. The best way to discourage violent jihad is to make them feel that we’re even more powerful and more violent when we’re disturbed. And they know we’re right to be disturbed. People like you are getting played by people like Abu Mazen, who as you should know, studied in the Soviet Union. Of course he’s just a bit player. Right? It’s not like he’s leading any kind of meaningful faction.

            Jihadis understand that it’s bar talk though still an indication that we know more than, say, people like you. And we’re the ones discouraging them. You’re encouraging them.

            The other side of the coin is that you’re comforting people that are not dangerous as well. That’s very nice. You’re still encouraging jihadis by making them feel Allah is calling them forward because the West is so stupid they’re practically asked to be annihilated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for what’s happening to America, we’ve known for years that China may overtake the scale of the U.S. economy and bump the U.S. dollar off the charts as the world’s reserve currency. That’s something that American multinational corporations could choose to help head off if they chose to remain manufacturing here in the U.S. Are they doing so?”

            American multinational? What does that mean? You mean having a home in the USA? You think that makes them more interested in preserving US hegemony? No. It doesn’t.

            “Nope, they’re heading to China and other third-world locations. If you’re going to moan about the state of America, make sure you include all the high points otherwise you appear ????”

            Wait, what? What high point? You just complained about multinationals and China and then immediately pivoted to criticizing something good that I overlook? You’ve just reminded me of more stupidity from this administration. What could you possibly be referring to? If you think he’s done something right you need to spell it out. Everything this guy has done, with no exceptions, has been about “spreading the wealth” around the globe and trying to convince Americans that there are no pitfalls for them. I understand his theories. I explained them to you. I know the kinds of people that advise him. I know these people. I get it. I do not appreciate them using deception. It pisses me off. If they have confidence in these theories, they need to explain them better and not sit around and call people stupid as justification for their lies that put America at grave risk. I assure you that they lie not because their opponents are stupid but ultimately they know on some level that they’re narratives are not very persuasive when fully exposed to the criticism.

        • Americana

          Your points in the above post have been answered in various posts over the past 6 months so I’m not going to waste my time rebutting them. hieronymous wrote a long and very detailed post about the locations, the military policy on their use and the tactical use of UNARMED DRONES vs ARMED DRONES as they’re available in the various Middle Eastern theaters. Ask him to repeat the information or look up his post.

          Permanent SNAFU from the White House is NOT OK, no matter WHO is the occupant. However, I expect the American people to recognize the strategic and diplomatic difficulties in the Middle East and not pretend it’s WW II Europe. I also expect the American people to connect the dots from the past history of the Defense Department from the time of Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld through to its recent history. I don’t expect Americans to think all American lives can be saved because we’ve got drones or any other high-tech devices in our tool box. I could do without pro-American jerkoffs who don’t care to fully investigate circumstances to events in the Middle East before making pronouncements that aren’t borne out by facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I also expect the American people to connect the dots from the past history of the Defense Department from the time of Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld through to its recent history. I don’t expect Americans to think all American lives can be saved because we’ve got drones or any other high-tech devices in our tool box. I could do without pro-American jerkoffs who don’t care to fully investigate circumstances to events in the Middle East before making pronouncements that aren’t borne out by facts.”

            You apparently don’t realize how fortunate Mr. 0′Bama was politically to have such difficulty mustering an effective response.

            You know how the left goes insane when Israel allegedly “over reacts” to their (and our) enemies? You know who some of the people are that push these anti-American notions (social justice, arc of history, think about blowback first, etc. etc.) of “proportional response?”

            Americans that want to win the war on Islamic terror expect our president to keep his oath of office. Americans that think about blowback and little else are pleased as punch that we didn’t “over react.”

            It is indeed politically fortuitous that all of this incompetence is just no big deal and business as usual. He gets to have it a little of both ways. He pursues his risky (that’s the kindest way I can describe it) agenda while denying dissenters the chance to scrutinize his policies and demand adjustments.

      • Doc2Go

        I do not endorse the report as comprehensive explanation. It does not satisfy my curiosity, reference who was responsible (and irresponsible) in the event, as it happened. The entire realm of data pertaining to Benghazi has been strenuously massaged by the WH and SoS. IIRC, weren’t the SoS and/or PotUS watching an overhead feed live, as two former SEALs were slaughtered? Wasn’t the RRF poised to save the day, and staged to deploy, well in advance of their deaths?

        The two (or three) distinct firefights that comprise what actually occurred were occupying a total timeframe of seven to nine hours, first shot to last. That would have been ample time to rescue and/or reinforce one or both positions. Weren’t the agents painting the mortars with a laser, waiting for an airstrike which never came, when they were killed by those mortars?

        The initial explanations for the cause of the attack predate the SoS explanation that the video was the reason. So, the explanation was changed at least twice. I think OFM is right, in not accepting the report as definitive explanation, simply based on the demonstrated past mendacity of the administration and its sycophants. Also, on a related subject: Isn’t the video maker still incarcerated, under dubious and technical charges? Did he have any First Amendment rights?

        -Doc

        • Americana

          No, the following is NOT TRUE >>> (Doc2Go) “The two (or three) distinct firefights that comprise what actually occurred were occupying a total timeframe of seven to nine hours, first shot to last. That would have been ample time to rescue and/or reinforce one or both positions.”

          The original attack on the consular compound was over within 2+ hours and the deaths to smoke inhalation had already occurred. So, no matter if a plane had been dispatched w/SEAL/RRF forces, the likelihood of Rapid Response Forces being able to save and reinforce the consular compound wasn’t ever possible. It might have been possible for the CIA Annex security personnel to counter-attack those attacking the consular compound, but that would have left the CIA Annex too lightly undefended and it would also have disclosed the location of the CIA Annex. You think that’s a win-win situation?

          As far as I’m concerned, the counter-attack by the CIA Annex security personnel who drove over to the consular compound disclosed the location of the CIA Annex and brought on the second attack (thus, their counter-attack was responsible for those two former-SEAL deaths at the CIA Annex). If the jihadists had known of the two separate locations, why wouldn’t they have brought sufficient forces to have attacked both simultaneously? Especially if they had known of the CIA Annex and that they’d have access to secret information if they’d taken over the Annex? Any arriving reinforcements would have arrived at both locations to have done EFFECTIVELY NOTHING but be there for the tail end of the fighting. They wouldn’t have arrived in time to ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING TO SALVAGE THE SITUATION.

          The arrest of the man who made the Mohammed film/video is a red herring. I’m not going there.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    It was risky politically to push. But the republic is better off having the administration pay a price for their mendacity.

    • Americana

      When some instances of mendacity are questioned while other instances are allowed to stand, then the political import becomes an issue. If people ASK ALL THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS or LISTEN TO ALL THE INFORMATION about an event such as Benghazi then I know whether they’re serious about getting to the truth or not. If they challenge HONEST ???? or HONEST STATEMENTS about an event such as Benghazi, then I know the political import is far more important to them than honesty.

      Just a reminder that the dangers to U.S./foreign diplomatic personnel remain unchanged even after Benghazi. Danger for them will be a constant in the Middle East and we still don’t have all angles covered despite knowing what the dangers arrayed against them are:

      http://news.yahoo.com/suicide-bomber-hits-british-embassy-vehicle-afghan-capital-073034152.html

      From the above link:

      While not common, attacks against diplomatic missions and personnel in Afghanistan show a determination to target anyone associated with the U.S.-led mission.

      A 25-year-old American diplomat was killed last year in an attack on a convoy in the country’s east.

      The Indian consulate in the western province of Herat was attacked in May by insurgents with rocket-propelled grenades and suicide vests. Last year, the U.S. consulate in Herat was also attacked with a truck bomb.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “When some instances of mendacity are questioned while other instances are allowed to stand, then the political import becomes an issue. If people ASK ALL THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS or LISTEN TO ALL THE INFORMATION about an event such as Benghazi then I know whether they’re serious about getting to the truth or not. If they challenge HONEST ???? or HONEST STATEMENTS about an event such as Benghazi, then I know the political import is far more important to them than honesty.”

        What are you talking about?

  • Americana

    Since when have free elections been at risk in this country?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It seems like lots of people say we don’t have them now. The risk comes from anyone who demands we change the laws to make them “freer” (according to their biased agenda).

      That’s the whole thing about conservatism. Conservatives aren’t bigots. They understand the law(s) of unintended consequences. And worse of all, we know about the Grubers that exploit complexity to cause harm through malice.

      • Americana

        If there are “no grounds to exploit complexity and cause harm through malice,” then why worry about complexity? The world IS ASTONISHINGLY COMPLEX in this time period. Our economic systems are extremely complex, our living situations are extremely complex, our international political relations are extremely complex. But to understand any of those one relies on FACTS; facts will support the truth in each and every case.

        What you should worry about are manufactured facts and manufactured scenarios that create alternative realities to the most rational view of the truth. The world is complex enough that analyzing the components in each candidate’s platform is enough work for each voter without having to contend w/political propaganda from any party. As for there being unintended consequences, it should be possible for our politicians and for voters to discuss those unintended consequences in advance of the implementation of any policy move and continue to tweak the system as we move forward if any policy step is taken.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          If there are “no grounds to exploit complexity and cause harm through malice,” then why worry about complexity?

          Rephrasing: There are no valid justifications for intentionally exploiting complexity and causing harm through malice,

          You really could not figure that out?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Our economic systems are extremely complex, our living situations are extremely complex, our international political relations are extremely complex. But to understand any of those one relies on FACTS; facts will support the truth in each and every case.”

          The first step is knowing the difference between facts and theories.

          “What you should worry about are manufactured facts and manufactured scenarios that create alternative realities to the most rational view of the truth.”

          What? What kind of industry experience do you have? Do you have experience in medical services or research in the USA? Do you have experience running enterprises where you have bottom line accountability for every aspect of the enterprise’s performance? Have you lived immersed in alien cultures where the people accepted you as a foreign-born native?

          How is it that you determined people who disagree with you are diffusional and you’re the master of the theories that are so good you can characterize them as “facts?”

          See, if I hear something I’m not certain about, I’ll say so. I don’t conflate theories or POV with facts. And generally speaking I comment on things I have direct experience with. If I get something second hand, I’ll say so.

          POV can be supported by facts, theories and delusion. Usually it’s a combination. You might be confident about some of the facts but your confidence about the “facts” on business economics, medicine and foreign cultures (and cross cultural issues) is greater than it should be. The chasm between the UK and the USA is not a great one. It doesn’t really help you understand the rest of the world and might even make it more difficult for you to understand diversity beyond a superficial level.

          • hiernonymous

            Since you raise the issues of experience and background as relevant issues, what are the nature of yours? You assert that you are speaking from direct experience; a more precise understanding of that experience would be relevant and helpful.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I believe I told you before. Transportation services, education services, electronics manufacturing, distribution and retail Including some medical manufacturers), some back-end Internet companies that would take time to explain to most people, and diversity in scale from a one man television repair shop to a global electronics manufacturer. And of course my own small projects but those don’t help understand macroeconomics without the other experience.

          • hiernonymous

            Not terribly helpful. “Transportation services” could be anything from a cab driver to CEO of Southwest Airlines, etc. One-man tv repair shop is descriptive enough, but electronics MNC – what role? CFO? Mailboy? Just trying to get a handle on the relative expertise being asserted here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Travel agency and international freight.

            “MNC – what role? CFO? Mailboy?”

            Consultant and liaison to CEO and CFO.

            The TV shop was the first commercial platform for working with electronics when I was 15. I built on that. I worked for free for my family and when I was still young people hired me after meeting me at these businesses.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s a bit better. So, based on what you’ve presented, you probably have a pretty good idea of the practical problems and procedures involved in businesses. When you offer an opinion about making payroll, or the practical impact of various policies on small business owners, for example, I might be more receptive than I might be if you made assertions about things you’ve no experience of.

            That was a productive line of inquiry. When you consulted, what was your area of expertise? Are you an IT systems advisor, a financial advisor, human resources, or something different or broader? I’ve several friends who are senior consultants in the banking and insurance world, and their experiences vary wildly.

            Is your passion for all things Marx something you picked up as a student, as a teacher, or are you self-taught?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That was a productive line of inquiry. When you consulted, what was your area of expertise? Are you an IT systems advisor, a financial advisor, human resources, or something different or broader? I’ve several friends who are senior consultants in the banking and insurance world, and their experiences vary wildly.”

            I’d need to run over my entire CV. There’s no real logical ending place to tell a compact story. Let me think about it.

          • William James Ward

            I wonder, is it no longer enough to just be smart
            and in front of the curve? No need for self justification
            here, intellect is telling enough……………William

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What happens is it doesn’t always matter that you’re right if you talk about things that attack someone else’s worldview. It’s easier to continue having faith in a worldview than to believe some random guy online.

          • William James Ward

            For those who may be interested I have never
            observed you being random :)…………W

          • objectivefactsmatter

            According to a certain worldview I’m just another random rightwing nutjob preaching things I gleaned from RWNJ blogs.

            I don’t know if you have ever seen “samloss” but for a long time he pretended that I made up neo-Marxism as a term or that it was some random slur that didn’t actually mean anything. Even after giving him lots of URLs on Critical Theory and cultural Marxism. So…waddayagonnado?

          • William James Ward

            Just what you are doing, being consistent and
            informed, instructing the ignorant………..William

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is your passion for all things Marx something you picked up as a student, as a teacher, or are you self-taught?”

            My “passion” for Marx came very late. I’ll try to think of a way to explain it without reviewing my entire life. We used to talk about Marxism in my family in historical terms. I realized a few years ago that the worst of it lives on. I found that almost by accident.

          • knowshistory

            the “chasm” between the usa and uk? it was about 20 years before the Obama treachery (the last one). after the Obama treachery, supported by America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic, as well as, incomprehensibly, a large portion of the “republican” party, it is shrunk to about 10 years. the barbarians are not AT the gate. due to the treachery of Obama, and, incomprehensibly, huge numbers of American citizens, as well as the lauded, praised, loved, admired, and protected illegal population, the enemy is INSIDE THE GATES. it is now, thanks to our traitor in chief, who opened the gates to the invaders for the inevitable 30 pieces of silver, hand to hand combat. the sooner the population under attack realizes that, the better their prospects to survive. the traditional treatment for traitors who open the gates for the enemy, by the way, is death. does the American public have the guts of their ancestors? I doubt it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There isn’t really so much as a chasm as a range of experiences that differs in the UK because of our constitution and various other factors. That was kind of my point. Culturally we’re not very different even though on a superficial level you can spot apparent differences. It’s easier for most California natives to travel to the UK than it is to travel to Texas in terms of cultural differences.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “What you should worry about are manufactured facts and manufactured scenarios that create alternative realities to the most rational view of the truth.”

          Because it’s not rational to leave out pertinent facts in order to make your model sexy. OK?

          “As for there being unintended consequences, it should be possible for our politicians and for voters to discuss those unintended consequences in advance of the implementation of any policy move and continue to tweak the system as we move forward if any policy step is taken.”

          Yeah. Exactly. Exactly what did NOT happen with the ACA, with the so-called “not amnesty” policy change that is not a change in the law but is a change in the law – depending on who POTUS is speaking to…

    • Pete

      When Democrats have walking around money. When Democrats openly consider lottery tickets to adults in the U.S. to encourage them to vote. etc, etc, etc.

      You never cease to amaze with your misdirection and stupidity.

  • Doc2Go

    As you proceed through the report, bear in mind consideration of the source. To say that Pakistan has been an ally would be generous and optimistic overstatement. To say that Pakistan’s intelligence services are effective and uncompromised by our terrorist enemies would be exceedingly naive. If it does tell the truth about one operation, that is all it does. I sincerely doubt it reflects a sea change in Pakistan’s willingness to defeat terrorists. I would be cautious about inferring much from it.

    -Doc

    • Americana

      Yes, I agree w/you that Pakistan’s intelligence service and, likely, the entire Pakistani Armed Forces remain divided and penetrated by these folks at various levels. (I could speculate about the penetration level based on the Osama bin Laden operation, but I won’t.) But the Pakistanis have decided they can no longer stand by and wait to see how Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will treat them. They realize they’ve got to maintain their territorial integrity. Whatever Saudi or Pakistani or Afghani or Iranian intelligence and government forces have thought previously about being able to manipulate the fate of other nations by using these terrorists as tools, it’s patently clear that all bets are now off. I don’t have a shred of naiveté about what’s happening in the Muslim world via terrorism and the tool that it provides for ulterior motives.

  • Americana

    You can’t have the Republican and Tea parties claiming we’ve got MOB RULE by the electorate while at same time trying to claim we’re heading toward an OLIGARCHY. The two things are mutually exclusive. Just FYI.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      What are you spouting about now?

      Evey hear of the phucking Constitution?

      And of course you can have an oligarchy that manipulates mobs. It’s not literally mob rule and nothing else. It’s appeasing people that are easy to manipulate and use as a tool against the middle class and other political enemies.

      When rule of law fails it can happen in any variety of ways. You can have lawless, pandering executives, corrupt agencies that are difficult to reign in, and pandering politicians that incite mobs before then looking for just the right solution to appease them. Which is what the manipulative puppet-master elites wanted in the first place.

      Nuance is not your thing. Ranting is your thing.

      • Americana

        Of course, one can have an oligarchy that manipulates the mob. That’s what we’re facing right now. As for the plucking Constitution being so abused by the current government, if it was so truly illegally ill-used, it would be easy enough to file a legal case that had legs. But that’s NOT what is being done despite all the loud-mouths on the Right. There are “manipulative puppet-master elites” on both sides of the equation so let’s not have you pretend that you’re unaware of that fact. Nuance is DEFINITELY not your thing.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Shut up, moronic spammer.

          • Americana

            That’s your fantastic rebuttal? I’d say that “moronic” and “spammer” are words best applied to posts like yours that consist solely of insults and pre-digested political pablum that are all cult phrases.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Shut up.

            Better?

          • Americana

            Not in the least. Spamalot himself spams on and his name is spamsobjective facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s Ispamstupidcommunistswithobjectivefacts to you. But they go straight over your head. So now it’s a dance of just getting you to shut up and do real research for a change before you spam this board again.

            OK moron?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Cult phrases? Yeah, the cult of people that hate and expose moronic communists like you. I’m a “cult leader.” Ya got me.

            Play your games if you want. But read the 6-part primer on capitalism. OK moron?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Turns out, to prep and dispatch jets from Aviano would have taken 20 hours.”

    That’s questionable. But nonetheless they’re on record. So clearly F16s from Aviano were not an important part of their contingency planning.

    • Americana

      That prep and dispatch time is NOT IN QUESTION. (“Turns out, to prep and dispatch jets from Aviano would have taken 20 hours.”) And that time is certainly not “questionable” just because you want it to be questionable or would find it convenient to imply that it’s questionable. Why would F-16s from Aviano be “an important part of their contingency planning” if the type of incident doesn’t call for F-16s? If you’re implying that having F-16s be considered to be the go-to military strike force for every incident w/our diplomats then you’re either very silly or very dangerous.

      Most of their contingency planning revolved (and still revolves) around small numbers of highly trained ex-Special Forces guys being on site and the implicit agreement that foreign governments are responsible for the safety of our American diplomats. In this case, the “government” might be considered to be the Libyan militia w/which they’d contracted for security. The dependence on foreign governments is how the U.S. has always managed its foreign missions. There’s nothing new about how the Obama administration has arranged for the defense of its diplomatic corps. The only thing that’s different in Libya and in Benghazi in particular is that we contracted w/a Libyan militia, which is about as stable a government as the U.S. could find to protect our diplomats in Benghazi.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “That prep and dispatch time is NOT IN QUESTION. (“Turns out, to prep and dispatch jets from Aviano would have taken 20 hours.”) And that time is certainly not “questionable” just because you want it to be questionable or would find it convenient to imply that it’s questionable.”

        Testimony is not proof. It is what it is. Your bean counting won’t help.

        “Why would F-16s from Aviano be “an important part of their contingency planning” if the type of incident doesn’t call for F-16s? If you’re implying that having F-16s be considered to be the go-to military strike force for every incident w/our diplomats then you’re either very silly or very dangerous.”

        They do and say all kinds of stupid things. I want to hear all of the excuses and see what they say. Once we have their testimony that is only the end of that phase of the investigation.

        I think you don’t know what incontrovertible means.

        “There’s nothing new about how the Obama administration has arranged for the defense of its diplomatic corps. The only thing that’s different in Libya and in Benghazi in particular is that we contracted w/a Libyan militia, which is about as stable a government as the U.S. could find to protect our diplomats in Benghazi.”

        The problem is that it was a bad idea layered on top of many other bad ideas that the guy does not want to be held accountable for. Many people are sick of this and want to hold him accountable for stupid ideas that have nothing to do with the maximum velocity of a fully laden African swallow. Although generating that kind of data noise is part of the strategy to defend him.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “And that time is certainly not “questionable” just because you want it to be questionable or would find it convenient to imply that it’s questionable.”

        You’re so freaking gullible.

  • Americana

    The most productive critique of your line of attack is that blowing up large numbers of CIA agents on the ground in order to save a few Americans inside a consular compound doesn’t make strategic sense if the point was to save as many American lives as possible. We’ve gone over and over and OVER these identical points. You keep trying to pretend that jets from Aviano or jets from an aircraft carrier could have gotten there and prevented the attack from advancing to the point of immolating the consular compound and killing some Americans by DOING A HIGH-SPEED FLY-OVER with or without using rockets and cannon fire. That is NOT THE CASE given the intelligence assets available on the ground surrounding the compound to assess and help direct the F-16 and A-10 pilots.

    (OFM) ” The most important questions have nothing to do with any particular options. What’s relevant is that we didn’t seem prepared to react to anything at all.”

    The most important question might well be NOT HOW the different options didn’t pan out but whether we can afford to maintain our consular facilities in the most high risk regions and countries given that we don’t staff our embassy and consulate faculties w/enough soldiers to prevent something like this Benghazi debacle. Even if Amb. Stevens had been granted a slightly larger security detail, it still wouldn’t change the fact the consular compound was not purpose-built to be defensible, not in its choice of location nor in its design features.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Stick to bean counting when people ask you specific questions. Follow the correct bean-counting protocols and people will be a lot happier with your work.

      • Americana

        There are NO “correct bean-counting protocols” when it’s a matter of factual evaluation of circumstances vs standing protocols for both the Defense Dept. and the State Dept. Who says I need to be happy w/people’s assessments of my posts? Who says I’ve got to write to curry favor the way some other folks do? Lordy, but you’re laying the Emily Post etiquette on a bit thick while forgetting I don’t like people who are thick.

  • Americana

    Oh, right, now you’re claiming that all you require is EVIDENCE of those jets not being ready to be sent. You’re implying that Sec. of Def. Leon Panetta, the man responsible for telling Pres. Obama it was a really good bet to go after Osama bin Laden in the Abbottobad compound, chose to be a LIAR to a Congressional committee? That he’s not the true-blue American patriot you’ve all been lauding who deserves ALL THE CREDIT for the bin Laden raid? Instead, you’re going to imply that he actually LIED to a Congressional committee despite the military folks listening to these hearings and anyone in the military could rat him out anonymously? See, this is where you liars all go down the tubes. You tell one too many lies and you construct ONE TOO MANY (NO, SEVERAL TOO MANY) IMPLAUSIBLITIES in your conspiracy theories for those theories to hold any water.

    If all you required to move on past the issue of F-16s was “evidence,” then why aren’t you able to produce any significant thoughts beyond the request for evidence? You’ve had MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to think this situation through. Certainly defense and prosecution lawyers would have a better handle by now on the Benghazi attack timeline and what would and wouldn’t have worked to salvage some part of this Benghazi attack. What are you thoughts on how to handle the present dilemma of the status of our diplomatic facilities and personnel being seen as legitimate targets? Our embassies and diplomats have basically ALWAYS RELIED on diplomatic immunity to survive in the worst places in the world. That is no longer holding true w/the world’s jihadists. What’s your solution? And please, don’t give me a RAMBOESQUE Rapid Relief Forces answer because I don’t believe that will be able to prevent major attacks nor prevent mass deaths among our diplomatic corps, particularly if there are MULTIPLE COORDINATED ATTACKS that strain the Rapid Relief Forces to their maximum. Despite the increase in our RFForces and their deployment, I think this is a marginal, stop-gap measure at best for our diplomatic corps.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Oh, right, now you’re claiming that all you require is EVIDENCE of those jets not being ready to be sent. ”

      You certainly are simple-minded.

      “You’re implying that Sec. of Def. Leon Panetta, the man responsible for telling Pres. Obama it was a really good bet to go after Osama bin Laden in the Abbottobad compound, chose to be a LIAR to a Congressional committee?”

      I think he would certainly allow an investigation to be driven by political needs if he believed he could also accomplish other worthwhile things. It’s just how the world works. Panetta is not really more credible than any other pol. I’m not going to call him a communist. He doesn’t mind the big state, that’s for sure. And the big state needs to smooth things over. Is he embarrassed by the Lerner’s and the Grubers? Probably only because they got caught.

      We’ll see how many other people emerge that can throw some light on other scandals. None of your silly rants will dissuade anyone about the fact that we don’t know what really happened.

      • Americana

        Oh, so now he’s “trying to accomplish other worthwhile things” by lying to the Congressional committee? And just what would those worthwhile things BE that he’s trying to accomplish? I’m trying mightily to come up w/a list of “worthwhile things” that would be accomplished by lying to the Congressional committee when making a STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE for not having the correct disposition of forces to protect our foreign interests is far more likely to garner budgetary discretion for State Dept. security in the next budget cycle. But you go right ahead and LIST THE WORTHWHILE THINGS that you see as being secured or accomplished by Sec. of Defense Panetta lying. I mean if you’ve got the conspiracy theory, it’s got to be FLESHED OUT w/REALISTIC CONSPIRATORIAL NE’ER DO WELL AIMS, right? So what are those aims? Let’s have you list them and then we can all evaluate how neatly you’ve tied up a conspiracy theory so far.

        As for the “big state” needing to smooth things over, you’ve tolerated huge scandals and not batted an eye just because your men were in charge. From claiming that I had no right to blame the current U.S. international military stance on the Rumsfeld Doctrine to the declaration of war in Iraq, you’ve totally panned any declarations about the Bush era decisions that have led to the decisions of today. Look at what you’ve just written about Libya, that “the U.S. wrecked it and left it there” when we did EXACTLY that far more definitively in Iraq. In fact, in Iraq we had Sec. of Def. Rumsfeld saying we didn’t even owe the Iraqis any restitution money in order to facilitate rebuilding. Now, as it turned out, the sectarian violence and the simmering ISIL/jihadi sentiments certainly wiped out millions, billions of the rebuilding money the U.S. gave Iraq. But initially, we had individuals in the U.S. government saying we didn’t owe the Iraqis any reconstruction funds.

        Oh, please, tell me you’re NOT going to roll out the Commie label for Leon Panetta, the Italian who dragged himself up by his bootstraps???? Very curious how fluid you are w/dishing out the labels and the conspiracy theories as long AS THEY ADVANCE YOUR PARTICULAR CONSPIRACY THEORY. But you do pick the wrong battles and the wrong examples on which to base your battles. As for “seeing how many other people emerge that can throw some light on other scandals,” since NO ONE OF GENUINE STATURE has come forward that has shed anything but a REASONABLE AND TRAGIC LIGHT on the Benghazi debacle, I’d be very surprised if anyone steps forward anytime in the future to back your conspiracy theory of Americans being left to die in Benghazi because of gun running. There are far too many highly credible military men who’ve endorsed the choices made that night, tragic though they might be. Sure, you don’t “know what happened” because you’re still pretending there was time for jets to fly from Saturn and that the armaments those jets would have been carrying were suitable for the job at hand.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Oh, so now he’s “trying to accomplish other worthwhile things” by lying to the Congressional committee? ”

          Dumbass,

          It’s not “lying” to present a view without all facts perfectly rectified and presented clearly. And second, it’s not a final verdict to simply report someone’s opinion that 20 hours would have been needed to do this or 8 hours would have been needed to do that other thing or whatever. It’s incomplete testimony. People that testify have to weigh what they think is most relevant and that’s when they’re being sincere about cooperating.

          You really do not understand the objections at all. Just as you have no clue why anyone would object to the ACA and socialized medicine in the USA.

          “Sure, you don’t “know what happened” because you’re still pretending there was time for jets to fly from Saturn and that the armaments those jets would have been carrying were suitable for the job at hand.”

          See, that’s an example of your stupidity. I have not presented any scenarios that defy any physical laws or any require any of our hardware to go beyond actual capabilities. Nor have I ever argued that Aviano is the preferred place to rely on for responding to emergencies in Libya and so forth.

          See, witnesses are not allowed to filibuster. Because idiots like you have nothing to contribute until specific questions are asked. Nobody ever asked you a question that you could answer competently. You’re injecting your own views, endlessly, without being asked, without understanding the questions people actually have, and without understanding that probing the F16s as an example is simply part of pinning down answers to establish competency of the various agencies but most important the competency and intentions of our leadership. Nobody is actually questioning the capabilities of our equipment. You’re creating fake controversies.

          The only controversies you raise are related to the fact that you apparently think that if something is not preferred that it becomes virtually impossible or stupid to contemplate. That is because you are stupid.

          But you’re an idiot. It’s ok that you hold those views as long as you stick to what you’re competent at doing. But instead you want to rant and blindly support the statists. Because you are, again, an idiot.

          • Americana

            Are you usually totally oblivious to when someone posts DIRECTLY TO YOU or are you IGNORING the post hieronymous directed at you w/a video of a high-angle strafing run by an F-16 pilot and a description of how ground intelligence helps pilots to effectively perform Close Air Support missions? Look at that post by hieronymous and then get back to me. I mean, here you are, once again shooting yourself in the foot over the fact that you’ve claimed that F-16s would have been able to do something in the way of CAS in the Benghazi attack and yet hieronymous is telling you that’s not the case. Then you’ve also claimed that the Armed Forces would respond to military directives from the WHITE HOUSE without the MILITARY ITSELF BEING THE GUIDING SOURCE for the DO GO or DON’T GO decision. Gah, I mean really, seriously, gah…. You’re simply oblivious. No, you’re not oblivious. You’re simply shilling for a purpose.

            (OFM) “Nobody is actually questioning the capabilities of our equipment. You’re creating fake controversies.” And let’s not overlook this little gem of OFM reasoning, “…without understanding the questions people actually have, and without understanding that probing the F16s as an example is simply part of pinning down answers to establish competency of the various agencies but most important the competency and intentions of our leadership.”

            Ah, I’m injecting my own views without being asked? But they aren’t necessarily **my own** views, I’ve posted numerous times w/the attributions of reasonable military men and the timeline. When I do mention my own views, I always mention that I’ve never heard anyone else bring up that particular thought. (This is precisely what happened w/the Rumsfeld Doctrine when I first began writing about it. No one had ever brought up that we’d basically maintained the Rumsfeld Doctrine since his tenure but the situation viz jihadi terrorism has effectively outstripped our capabilities to deploy as rapidly as is required as well as the fact that we’re no longer dealing w/governments that can reliably respond to U.S. requests for military backup in some states in the Middle East.) I rarely quote “nobodies” and now, it seems, even when I quote those in the know in the military and the Secretary of Defense, you’ll object to those experts by claiming they’re BIG STATISTS and they’re protecting the BIG STATE. Obviously, you’re your own expert. It’s very odd that you’d question Leon Pannetta’s patriotism when you’re willing to let the statements of someone like Drakken go UNCHALLENGED just because he’s selling the solution you favor. That’s especially funny when Drakken has been shown TWICE to be LYING about his knowledge of a situation about which he claims to have first-hand knowledge. Trouble is, your bread is buttered w/LOW-FACT butter and you’re content to continue to go w/the LOW-FACT butter because you don’t like the flavor.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are you usually totally oblivious to when someone posts DIRECTLY TO YOU or are you IGNORING the post hieronymous directed at you w/a video of a high-angle strafing run by an F-16 pilot and a description of how ground intelligence helps pilots to effectively perform Close Air Support missions?”

            Dumbass,

            Jerry and I finished that conversation with a simple question as to whether he would turn down support from F16s if he was on the ground that day. He did not answer yet.

            None of your bullcrap has illuminated any aspect of the conversation.

            And his video was a response to my video that simply reminded him what it looks like from the enemy’s perspective. Neither video can be used to “prove” anything in dispute.

          • Americana

            Off to check hieronymous’ posts because I believe he did answer you. And as I recall, he replied in the negative.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go find it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter 6 days ago: “I missed it if you already answered.Apparently so. If you scroll up, you’ll see my response to your post. If I’m on the ground that night, I have no way of employing that asset against the threat, so,no, I wouldn’t ask for the AF to send those pilots in for no good reason.”

            That’s not an answer. The question is would he turn them down if offered. If the fight is still going on, not if they offered them after it was too late for “no good reason.”

            I want an unqualified statement from him that he would turn down F16 support if offered while he was being fired on as those men were. The other questions can be answered separately as to whether they could get there in time and so forth.

          • Americana

            That is an unqualified statement. He said he had no way to use those pilots. End of story. He wouldn’t have requested them.

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter 6 days ago: “I missed it if you already answered.Apparently so. If you scroll up, you’ll see my response to your post. If I’m on the ground that night, I have no way of employing that asset against the threat, so,no, I wouldn’t ask for the AF to send those pilots in for no good reason.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >I wouldn’t ask for the AF to send those pilots in for no good reason.”<

            That's not a straight answer. That's a qualified answer. You do know the difference? If he wants to say clearly that there is no way in any scenario that the F16s would be useful to him under any circumstances that night even if they could have arrived "in time" then I'll agree that I have him on record.

          • Americana

            That’s no more a qualified answer than anything else he’s stated about Benghazi. F-16s weren’t the tool for the job, therefore he wouldn’t have requested them. The phrase “sending in those pilots for no good reason” is NOT A QUALIFIER, that’s a NEGATORY PHRASE that implies they’d have served no good purpose.

            hieronymous has stated in that sentence that the AF sending in F-16s when the pilots couldn’t have helped him strategically on the ground would not have been something he’d request. End of story. You and your lordly demands, “then I’ll agree that I have him on record.” He’s on record. You just don’t like the answer.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “hieronymous has stated in that sentence that the AF sending in F-16s when the pilots couldn’t have helped him strategically on the ground would not have been something he’d request. ”

            That’s not an answer to my question. I asked if he would turn down available support from F16s. That’s the question. If he then says there is no way F16s can help shape the battle in our (or his) favor, that is an unequivocal statement. That’s not what he said.

          • Americana

            OMG, did you take the SATs language test? What was your score? You want to nitpick the wording, go ahead, knock yourself out. Anyone else reading these comments of yours wouldn’t be fooled in the least by your obfuscation over the precise wording of his refusal of the F-16s as being tactically foolish in the extreme.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Anyone else reading these comments of yours wouldn’t be fooled in the least by your obfuscation over the precise wording of his refusal of the F-16s as being tactically foolish in the extreme.”

            All he said was that he would not ______ without good reason. Anyone can say that about anything.

          • Americana

            Nitpick all on your lonesome. I’ll let hieronymous respond to your inanity or insanity or however he’d characterize your latest and greatest rebuttal post of his perspective.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            All I said was that he equivocated. But that’s OK because he already backed off elsewhere. I’m sure he doesn’t need you speaking for him. It’s not absurd to think that in some circumstances that F16s would be used on such a mission.

          • Americana

            Talk about equivocation… And, funny, but you just complained about hieronymous equivocating and he equivocated a whole lot less than you just did. Do you just refuse to listen to military men making honest tactical assessments or do you think that your laymen’s defense of such idiocy holds sway w/the FPM audience?

            Lordy, listen to you continue to throw a Hail Mary pass on this: (OFM) “It’s not absurd to think that in some circumstances that F-16s would be used on such a mission.”

          • Americana

            Oh, yeah, you say hieronymous backed off one of his statements? Do share w/the crowd. Generally, he’s so careful w/his writing and his research I can’t imagine he’d feel any need whatsoever to back off anything he’s ever written.

            I’ll also ask hieronymous if he backed off any statements he made. You know, just to be sure hieronymous actually did what you claimed he did.

          • hiernonymous

            “All he said was that he would not ______ without good reason. Anyone can say that about anything.”

            You are reading stupidly, or reporting mendaciously.

            That is not all he said. If one notes that he would not do X without good reason, and has firmly established that there was no good reason to do X, then your question – would one do X – is clearly and well answered. Alternatively, you could simply have cast your eyes to the first word of the answer, “no,” and consulted a dictionary.

            We haven’t mentioned, yet, of course, that the question itself is a poor one. I’ll let you mull over why that might be on your own.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You could have said no unequivocally. Instead you find it convenient to look back “knowing” that the F16 would have been useless. Because after the fact you can say you “would have had” no good reason.

            Let me think of a better question. If you were called to respond at around the time the first alarm went out from Benghazi that day and you were given the choice of F16 support or nothing at all, would you reject the F16s?

            And if you say no, I’ll say that you’re a liar. Maybe you’re lying to yourself as well.

          • hiernonymous

            You don’t have enough understanding of what you’re talking about for an accusation of “liar” in this situation to be meaningful.

            If I were offered “F-16″ support, it would be an F-16 that was actually armed with air-to-ground weaponry and the concomitant fueling support to loiter for a tactically meaningful period of time. Neither of those applies here, and you frankly haven’t displayed either the knowledge or the judgment on this matter for such an accusation to carry any weight.

            To give you an idea of how ineffably stupid you are being on this matter, the “argument” you’re making is somewhat akin to suggesting that the administration did not do all it should have on Black Tuesday because it did not give free ocean liners to every investor who lost on the stock market on the afternoon of the crash. When confronted with the fact that giving away free liners was not really an option, “if you were an investor and you were offered a free liner, would you have turned it down?”

            It’s a pretty decent analogy, because the general underlying idea – that the government could eventually have provided some sort of assistance or stimulus package – is reasonable, but the specific proposal – ocean liners that day – is gibberish. In the Benghazi case, you continue to cling to military gibberish because you can’t tell the difference. Don’t compound stupid by doubling down on offensive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re not following. I’ll try to think of another way of asking you the simple question whether F16s can shape events in our favor such a scenario. It really is that simple. Or perhaps the horse is dead.

            Questioning expectations of how much the government will do to salvage every situation is an entirely different question.

            The ultimate point of this approach on Benghazi, not just accepting what the administration says, is to push to find facts and to show that our approach in Libya was a failure from the outset. But simply saying that isn’t enough. The more data we can put together the more persuasive the case will be.

            The F16 question is somewhat of a red herring. It still produces interesting answers when people are pushed. I think you’ve been reasonably cooperative but you’re still trying hard to spin your answers and avoid or minimize criticism of the administration. How self-aware you are regarding this effort to “spin” and “unwind” the “jingoists” is something I can’t quite get it. But I’m OK for now. Thanks for your time. I just don’t think you actually pondered the question seriously. I can’t imagine any soldier just saying in such a cavalier fashion that they would dismiss any support from the air when they’re clearly outnumbered and out-gunned. But as I said before, I think this horse is dead.

            I do expect more from our leaders. I think that this administration’s foreign policy has been a disaster from 2009 until today with no sign of getting any better at all. I see no sign that any lessons have been learned by anyone that apologizes for them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To give you an idea of how ineffably stupid you are being on this matter, the “argument” you’re making is somewhat akin to suggesting that the administration did not do all it should have on Black Tuesday because it did not give free ocean liners to every investor who lost on the stock market on the afternoon of the crash. ”

            Not even close. I want to know why we destroyed a Libyan sovereign that was not a big problem for us in any sense only to allow jihadis to take over the place while we pretended otherwise. You refer to history as if it was about retaliation and you know that isn’t the case. I want to know who is actually driving our foreign policy where jihadis are active.

          • Americana

            He’s interested in compound interest. ;) (Or at least he’s compounding my interest in watching his tactical claims continue to go south.)

            I don’t want an ocean liner by the way, I’ll settle for a small wooden schooner.

          • hiernonymous

            ” If he then says there is no way F16s can help shape the battle in our (or his) favor, that is an unequivocal statement. That’s not what he said.”

            Actually, that’s a perfectly adequate understanding of “I have no way of employing that asset against the threat.”

            Bottom line: you’ve suggested that sending effectively unarmed F-16s into Benghazi would have been a perfectly valid military response. You don’t know what you’re talking about. When you return to talking to something you do know something about (and by that, I don’t mean the inevitable shift to why F-16s over Benghazi are about collectivism), I’ll read what you have to say less dismissively.

            Out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bottom line: you’ve suggested that sending effectively unarmed F-16s into Benghazi would have been a perfectly valid military response.”

            If by “valid” what you mean to say is that I suggested it’s better than nothing, then yes. That is what I said. But then again I don’t know what they had going on on the ground and so forth. My assumption is that if there was a serious effort to take charge and respond like winners that can – you know – shape events, then I think any armed jet could have helped shape events better than, well, nothing at all.

            You want to stick to this insider view that you would not want them. OK. Fair enough. I can’t argue with you about your judgment. There’s no point in continuing along those lines.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…and by that, I don’t mean the inevitable shift to why F-16s over Benghazi are about collectivism…”

            That was dumb.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s very odd that you’d question Leon Pannetta’s patriotism…”

            Actually I didn’t. The only thing you know how to do is to generate fake controversies with your own stupidity.

          • Americana

            If Sec. of Def. Panetta had information that Benghazi was salvageable by use of any U.S. military forces then, in effect, his integrity was and remains in question and he would have been lying to the Congressional committee by omission. Care to reconsider your idiocy, Mr. Idiot Chairman of the Ad Hoc Benghazi Boys Commission?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If Sec. of Def. Panetta had information that Benghazi was salvageable…”

            Again, moron, we still do not have all of the answers. It’s not “lying” like the usual leftists do to simply consolidate reports without personally investigating veracity as a determined critic would.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “We still do not have all the answers.” And the addendum should be, “But we’re asking the same questions over and over and over again to which we already have the answers.” God knows why you’re doing that — asking the same questions over and over again — but it makes no sense to me.

            As for “the determined critics investigating the veracity” of all their statements, there’s been PLENTY OF TIME for everyone, including the determined critics in the crowd, to parse all the information and arrive at other possibilities and other lines of questioning. So, why is it we have you still pretending that having F-16s flying in from Aviano is the ideal solution to the type of inner city firefight that had the U.S. consular compound overrun within the first half-hour of fighting? Why isn’t the takeaway lesson of all this clear to you, and why weren’t there questions on the nature of American diplomacy at this point in time? Why isn’t it clear that the U.S. is going to have to alter its traditional ways of handling diplomacy given the nature of Middle East politics right now? We may not be able to have American diplomats in that region if we refuse to face the fact there will be horrific incidents like Benghazi which will be the price we’re expected to pay for attending to diplomatic business in the traditional way. We may have to consolidate all our different consular operations in Qatar at the U.S. base there and have only the occasional visit by the U.S. diplomats assigned to each country that’s afflicted w/ISIL and jihadist turmoil.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But we’re asking the same questions over and over and over again to which we already have the answers.”

            No dumbass. I’m telling people like you to stop attacking people that are not satisfied. I haven’t asked you any questions about Benghazi with any expectations of finding out what happened.

            You’re just another shirt distributor.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I wonder if you’re on a government paycheck and we can find out if your supervisor approves of you abusing citizens like this?

            Sure. You’d probably get hired at the IRS if anyone found out. This is why most Americans loathe government workers. If you worked for USPS you’d have all of their excuses to spit out at people. You’re perfect for modern government work. Just perfect. Another Lois Lerner.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “I wonder if you’re on a government paycheck and we can find out if your supervisor approves of you abusing citizens like this?”

            Ah, so now having discussion partners that don’t necessarily toe your party line is being abusive? Listen, my abuse doesn’t hold a candle to your abuse. Wonder what would happen if we were eventually to end up in court and you’ve got about 10 million “Dumbass” and “Idiots” for your abuse total directed at me and I’ve got a few thousand funny puns like the “Benghazi Boys Ad Hoc Committee? Yeah, try to pretend that that is “abuse of a citizen,” I’d really love to see how that plays out. In fact, let’s just do it. Let’s have my lawyer contact you lawyer and have at it. You were the one to do the throw down, now let’s have some follow through.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I hate to think that I’m paying taxes for some idiot like you to preach the unquestioned greatness of the big state. You remind me of Lois Lerner. Your attitude is not appropriate for a government servant.

            People are sick of this crap. We don’t need you. Find a job in the private sector if you can.

            “I’d really love to see how that plays out. In fact, let’s just do it. Let’s have my lawyer contact you lawyer and have at it. You were the one to do the throw down, now let’s have some follow through.”

            I wouldn’t need a lawyer. And I wouldn’t waste my time going after you personally because I know there are thousands of losers just like you, some even worse. Just letting you know the citizen’s perspective of people like you.

            Obviously if there is anyone I want to see fried it’s the people I KNOW have broken the law. You’re small potatoes. Just saying, your attitude sucks. Your sense of entitlement is pathetic. And your worship of other government employees…oh boy…

            And if I did pursue something there’s nothing you can do about it from a legal perspective against me. Why would it be illegal for me to find out if you collect a government check and then investigate whether you’re violating any regulations by getting deeply involved in politics and harassing dissenters? It’s like the IRS abuses but much smaller scale.

            You people are such lunatics.

          • Americana

            Ah, yet another obvious mistake on your part. You and your mistaken assumptions. Lordy, but you’ve become waaaaaaayyyyy too accustomed to having the run of the yard. I AM in the private sector. You wouldn’t need a lawyer, huh? I’d say if you can’t even recognize a fellow citizen and/or read her posts w/a clear head that you’ve got bigger flaws in your world view than you think.

            Why would it be illegal for you to find out if “I collect a government check and then investigate whether you’re violating any regulations by getting deeply involved in politics and harassing dissenters?” Well, it likely wouldn’t be illegal for you to do minimal background info checks. But you’re so wrong-headed on the issue of harassment that it’s pretty amazing you’d threaten me w/exposure and coming at me through my boss. Unless you could prove that I was actually harassing you, then nothing else you’ve written is even logical. Considering the tone and content of our respective posts, you don’t have a leg to stand on about a harassment charge.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why would I trust your information as superior if you simply get it from public records?

          • Americana

            Because it’s generally not just confirmed from public records sources. Besides, if you’re going to claim that you don’t trust “stuff if it’s simply gotten from public records,” then why trust someone like Drakken? He sort of sounds authentic in some respects and then he makes tactical blunders in conversation w/making claims of knowledge well above his pay grade and his access level even as a military contractor in the Middle East. Those claims of Drakken’s were accepted without ANY QUESTION from you folks but I noticed very strange factual disconnects between what I know and what Drakken claimed. I challenged him TWICE and he was proven to be WRONG in those two MAJOR INSTANCES. Obviously, personal testimony ISN’T as reliable as you would have everyone believe. The fog of battle isn’t just the smoke of ordnance over a battlefield, there’s another kind generated by the intellectual fog of a different type of battle back home.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Considering the tone and content of our respective posts, you don’t have a leg to stand on about a harassment charge.”

            As a citizen you’re entitled to belligerently defend your big state heroes all you want. As a government employee…it would depend. Of course they all think they can do just about anything but it’s moot if you don’t work for the government.

          • Americana

            Go ahead, make good on your legal eagle threat, Big Boy. Let’s see if you can make the wheels of justice turn in your favor just because you don’t REALLY LIKE free speech. I’ll start collecting our respective posts as of today. As a government employee, I would still be within my rights to voice what I have voiced. Let’s not have you give the FPM audience a false impression of what is and isn’t allowed for federal employees. This will be an interesting trial considering all such above posts that you’ve made over the years.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You really are a moron.

            Watch what happens to Lois Lerner after being exposed for ranting and scheming against people while working for the IRS.

          • Americana

            As I’ve said, make all the threats you want. Be sure and follow through w/legal action on the harassment charge if you think you can make it stick. I’ll begin storing your posted material in preparation for any eventual legal action you may choose to take. Lawyers in my family would love a nice challenge like the one this situation presents. Best of all, I’m sure they’d handle it for free because it’s a matter of defending the free speech clause. It’d be a win-win-WIN for them, especially when they WIN OUTRIGHT.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You are such an idiot. I didn’t threaten you with legal action. You’re “threatening” to “defend” yourself with family lawyers.

            Oh no.

            “Best of all, I’m sure they’d handle it for free because it’s a matter of defending the free speech clause. It’d be a win-win-WIN for them, especially when they WIN OUTRIGHT.”

            What would they win?

          • Americana

            objectivefactsmatter 14 hours ago — (OFM) “I wonder if you’re on a government paycheck and we can find out if your supervisor approves of you abusing citizens like this?”

            This is a declaration that objectivefactsmatter showed curiosity about contacting Americana’s supervisor in an attempt to influence the employer/employee disciplinary system on the basis of perceived harassment.

            (OFM) “That’s right. I harass harassers like you.”

            This is a declaration that objectivefactsmatter was aware that he is intentionally harassing Americana. See how this legal thing works? You continue to insert your foot in your mouth w/liberality and gay abandon and I’ll be waiting to catch you out each and every time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You really are an idiot. Bring it to your family lawyer. Please keep me posted.

            Your legal acumen is just as sharp as your economics nous.

            “I’ll be waiting to catch you out each and every time.”

            What you need is a psychiatric evaluation. But go ahead and amuse the boards with your views on the law.

            I repeat this threat to every government employee that promotes statism:

            (OFM) “I wonder if you’re on a government paycheck and we can find out if your supervisor approves of you abusing citizens like this?”

          • Americana

            (OFM) “I repeat this threat to every government employee that promotes statism:”

            (OFM) “I wonder if you’re on a government paycheck and we can find out if your supervisor approves of you abusing citizens like this?”

            So you recognize that you’re issuing a threat by implying that you can influence someone’s employment because you feel they’re abusing and harassing YOU by participating on public forums where free speech is supposedly free speech? Keep it up. You’re such a BRILLIANT BB TACTICIAN, I’d hate for one of the lawyers in my family to cramp your inimitable style!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re such a BRILLIANT BB TACTICIAN, I’d hate for one of the lawyers in my family to cramp your inimitable style!”

            https://otterlover58.files.wordpress.Com/2014/12/makeitstop.jpg

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            You’re free to say what you want, but not completely free from consequences.

            Since you’re so freaking confused, let me give you a recent example where some dude was fired for publishing pictures of DHS vehicles. He broke no laws. But his employer was unhappy about this lack of discretion and it violated company policies.

            Go talk to any lawyer that you want about your “concerns” and see how long it takes for the laughter to dissipate.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m not in the least confused about actions and consequences. You’re the one who’s confused about actions and consequences. You’re simply trying to buffalo everyone here into thinking they can issue terroristic threats and those types of terroristic threats can be made without consequences as long as they include conjunctives like “if”. But they’re not able to made without consequences in many instances and certainly not in this instance where your threats have been ramping up.

            The fact you gave a HOPELESSLY INAPPROPRIATE example of a ‘company’ coming down hard on an employees doesn’t mean you understood what happened in that instance. By taking photos of DHS vehicles, an employee failed to observe company security policies. The fact you misinterpreted WHY the company chose to terminate his employment indicates you haven’t got A CLUE about company legalities and how they intersect w/personal employment rights. What he did was illegal. The man violated company SECURITY POLICIES since he photographed Dept. of Homeland Security vehicles and he perhaps also had included their license plates so specific vehicles could be identified. That’s not the equivalent of me exercising my rights to free speech whether I am or am not a government employee. So unless there are specific provisions restricting my speech to which I am subject as a government employee or as an employee in the private sector because of the nature of my job, my free speech is as free as, well, yours. It’s free speech that shouldn’t include TERRORISTIC THREATS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 11 minutes ago:

            “You’re simply trying to buffalo everyone here into thinking they can issue terroristic threats and those types of terroristic threats can be made without consequences as long as they include conjunctives like “if”. But they’re not able to made without consequences in many instances and certainly not in this instance where your threats have been ramping up.”

            I hate to see you delete this later. This is precious to me.

            http://definitions.uslegal.Com/t/terroristic-threat/

            Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition

            A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.

            The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:

            TERRORISTIC THREAT

            (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: cause a reaction of any type to his threat[s] by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies; place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service; place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So you recognize that you’re issuing a threat by implying that you can influence someone’s employment because you feel they’re abusing and harassing YOU by participating on public forums where free speech is supposedly free speech?”

            The concern is that people like you and Lois Lerner are going around collecting money and attacking people that want smaller, more accountable government.

            You also missed a key word you completely unhinged lunatic. It’s the same conditional word Jerry used.

            1if conjunction ˈif, əf

            —used to talk about the result or effect of something that may happen or be true

            —used to discuss the imaginary result or effect of something that did not happen or that is or was not true

            —used to say that something must happen before another thing can happen

            Full Definition of IF

            1a : in the event that
            b : allowing that
            c : on the assumption that
            d : on condition that

            2: whether

            3—used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish

            4: even though : although perhaps

            5: and perhaps not even —often used with not

          • Americana

            Listen, dim bulb, you are issuing a threat. The fact you qualify the threat w/”IF” doesn’t negate the fact you issued a threat and you intend to follow through on that threat as far as you can do so. That is a threat that is meant to be demoralizing and make me fearful, and that requires financial compensation in a court of law because it’s TERRORISTIC BEHAVIOUR. Check in w/your family lawyer on the above précis. I’m sure you’ll find that given several of your recent remarks a good lawyer (as those in my family are) will be able to craft a case and find a suitable charge that meets the evidence provided by such as the above. You never seem to recognize when you’re out of your depth. It must be hubris.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re an idiot.

          • Americana

            Getting a little nervous now that you’ve read some other legal eagles ruminating over what constitutes a threat? You’re the idiot because you’ll make threats in order to one-up an opponent in hopes of quashing their free speech without really knowing the limits as to what threats you can make. But, oooops, what you’re suggesting is not quite legal…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            See, these stories keep moving forward in your mind just as you expect them to. The thing is that you’re out of touch with reality.

            I don’t even need to say if to stay within the law. I can say that anyone, including you, that harasses people online should be reported to their employer. Obviously there is nothing illegal that I’ve suggested.

            But what we have done is brought out new levels of intensity in your manic episodes. And that is why it’s urgent for you to talk to a doctor.

          • Americana

            My posts don’t constitute harassment. Much as you’d like to convince everyone here on FPM that they do constitute harassment. As for you “bringing out new levels of intensity in my manic episodes”, who are you selling this SNAKE OIL TO?? The dramaturge is at it again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Let’s see, your comments (according to you) do not constitute harassment. It’s a judgment call according to me.

            But you’ve also said that I’m making “terroristic threats” against you for lawfully suggesting that harassers can be reported to their employers.

            And how would that even be a threat if you’re doing nothing wrong? Do you see how your logic breaks down? I guess you don’t see.

          • Americana

            You’ve made two assumptions in your post that you should recognize are ASSUMPTIONS. 1) Your claim is that I’m harassing you (vs you **harassing me** which is the more accurate assessment) and that’s highly debatable in the context of the overall on line debate but it becomes far clearer as to who is harassing who when you analyze the nature of the threat you made; 2) you claim that I’m doing something “wrong” by participating on this forum when I’m doing exactly what you are doing minus a whole ton of sidewise comments about you needing psychiatric help, drugs, etc. (which you are doing incessantly, to me). In fact, it seems your antipathy toward me arises from the fact I’m not simply echoing the party line and that I challenge anything I read that is factually amiss.

            Considering the party line on some of these threads constitutes a whole bunch of advocacy of illegal things, I’m not sure why I’m expected to endorse those sentiments or add similar sentiments in my voice to those posts. You choose to skate on thin ice, don’t be surprised if you occasionally run across someone who’s better equipped to skate across thin ice than you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “1) Your claim is that I’m harassing you (vs you **harassing me** which is the more accurate assessment) and that’s highly debatable in the context of the overall on line debate but it becomes far clearer as to who is harassing who when you analyze the nature of the threat you made”

            Newsflash: We’re harassing each other. You’re doing it to filibuster this site. I’m doing it to keep you away from filibustering other conversations.

            “2) you claim that I’m doing something “wrong” by participating on this forum when I’m doing exactly what you are doing minus a whole ton of sidewise comments about you needing psychiatric help, drugs, etc. (which you are doing incessantly, to me). In fact, it seems your antipathy toward me arises from the fact I’m not simply echoing the party line and that I challenge anything I read that is factually amiss.”

            No, psychotic moron. I never said your participation is ipso facto illegitimate. CLEARLY I’m commenting on your intent to attack people that offer dissent. You attack people that you disagree with, but you disagree with the site as a whole. You’re only here to disrupt. I attack people that are here to disrupt. My motives are not personal or malicious in any sense.

            “Considering the party line on some of these threads constitutes a whole bunch of advocacy of illegal things…”

            You just admitted that you are here to personally oppose the group, not just certain messages. Your orientation is to attack. And even that is OK. Your problem is that you want to attack and filibuster conversations even if every other commenter disagrees with you.

            “I’m not sure why I’m expected to endorse those sentiments or add similar sentiments in my voice to those posts.”

            Nobody is forcing you to hold any particular views. Your problem is that it’s not good enough for you to voice your opinion. You apparently follow some kind of emotional need to attack people whether you understand the issues or not and you apparently have some standard for determining “winner” with you against…everyone commenting at sites you disagree with. It’s seriously unhealthy. And by anyone’s standard when one person expects to filibuster consensus, that’s irrational. Make your point and move on. Your hero Jerry doesn’t behave like this even though he some times leans a little bit too far in expecting to influence consensus through repetition. If he catches a little flack for it, no big deal. You on the other hand are totally out of control and it would be understandable if a site moderator kicked you out. I’ve NEVER been kicked out of a forum or even asked to leave. Why do so many people get tired of you but not me?

            “You choose to skate on thin ice, don’t be surprised if you occasionally run across someone who’s better equipped to skate across thin ice than you are.”

            I’m actually a pretty good skater. Your standards for “thin ice” mean nothing.

            But stupid assumptions are something you really like to use for some reason.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 10 minutes ago:

            “That is a threat that is meant to be demoralizing and make me fearful…”

            It’s hilarious to read in the media how leftists create phony victim narratives and here you bring it all the way here personally. Wow. Thanks for demonstrating how idiotic you communists are.

            “…and that requires financial compensation in a court of law because it’s TERRORISTIC BEHAVIOUR. Check in w/your family lawyer on the above précis.”

            It’s sad how stupid you are. Really.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Are you not threatening me now? Is it your INTENTION to DEMORALIZE me? It must be because I FEEL demoralized and I FEEL threatened! I’ll sue you for “malicious intent” and for mangling the Constitution!

            I’m also going to sue for using British spelling and wasting characters. This TERRORISTIC BEHAVIOUR must end! Good day!

          • Americana

            I haven’t mentioned going to your employer and trying to get you fired. That was your BRAINIAC PROPOSAL, aka terroristic threat. (Yeah, make a terroristic threat, that’s the way to tamp that beotch down!) As for you attempting to demoralize me and cause me not to post because of your terroristic threat to go to my employer, yes, that does qualify as a form of terroristic threat that would adversely affect me economically. But carry on, it’s pretty funny seeing how smart you think you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 2 minutes ago: “I haven’t mentioned going to your employer and trying to get you fired. That was your BRAINIAC PROPOSAL, aka terroristic threat. (Yeah, make a terroristic threat, that’s the way to tamp that beotch down!) As for you attempting to demoralize me and cause me not to post because of your terroristic threat to go to my employer, yes, that does qualify as a form of terroristic threat that would adversely affect me economically. But carry on, it’s pretty funny seeing how smart you think you are.”

            Dumbass,

            If you work for the government and go online harassing people to promote your statist views and silence dissent, you deserve to be reported to your supervisor who would then be required to follow the law.

            So, your cause of action is what? Terroristic threat? You’re insane.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.Com/2014/07/30/lois-lerner-emails-_n_5634379.html

            WASHINGTON (AP) — A former IRS official at the heart of the agency’s tea party controversy called conservative Republicans “crazies” and more in emails released Wednesday.

            Lois Lerner headed the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status. In a series of emails with a colleague in November 2012, Lerner made two disparaging remarks about members of the GOP, including one remark that was profane.

            Rep. Dave Camp, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, released the emails Wednesday as part of his committee’s investigation. The Michigan Republican says the emails show Lerner’s “disgust with conservatives.”

            In one email, Lerner called members of the GOP crazies. In the other, she called them “as$holes.” The committee redacted the wording to “_holes” in the material it released publicly but a committee spokeswoman confirmed to the AP that the email said “as$holes.”

            Protected speech? Yes. Sort of. Compliant with job requirements? Possibly not.

          • Americana

            Lois Lerner’s behavior is a totally different situation than what I’m doing. The fact you don’t see any legal difference is extremely telling. You know only what you read about on blogger sites meant to defend the half-witted political crazies of the world. Read a LOT DEEPER and read on LOTS OF DIFFERENT LEGAL SITES so you actually get the point of someone causing someone else to suffer damages to their reputation and their finances just because you don’t like their opinions.

            http://www.dmlp.org/threats/goren-v-doe

          • Americana

            I’m not going on line “harassing people and trying to silence dissent nor am I promoting political views” which I’m NOT ENTITLED TO VOICE as a private citizen. You are just plain out of your depth on the law. My speech is PROTECTED SPEECH and it DOES NOT OVERSTEP THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY and REASONABLE THOUGHTS on any and all issues that I’ve written about on this forum. Compliant w/job requirements? You betcha.

            The fact you are trying to claim that my speech has anything to do w/the IRS situation and Lois Lerner speaks volumes about the extent to which you’ll INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT a situation and a personal adversary in order to sell your case to the FPM public at large. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your egotism and your hard-headed wrong-way Corrigan kookiness.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact you are trying to claim that my speech has anything to do w/the IRS situation and Lois Lerner speaks volumes about the extent to which you’ll INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT a situation and a personal adversary in order to sell your case to the FPM public at large.”

            What I’m pointing out is that Lerner has a vested interest in killing dissent that attacks the IRS and the big state in general. Anyone that is paid by the state should not be allowed to operate in the shadows in any way if they’re promoting some aspect of the government that they’re also vested in. We call this a conflict of interest. It’s not always actionable but it’s worth investigating.

            And speaking of ignorance, my speech is protected more than yours if you are a government employee. I have rights to express dissent that exceed yours in defending your gravy train. Although it is debatable. The thing is that you don’t have any understanding of how our laws work so it would be pointless even trying to explain.

          • Americana

            That is NOT a conflict of interest unless such a person were to have the power and the position to influence the outcome of political events. If this is my choice as an individual voter to come on and voice political opinions, you’d better recognize that unless I am specifically enjoined not to do so CONTRACTUALLY BY MY JOB DESCRIPTION/TITLE and I’m not UNDERMINING MY FEDERAL WORKPLACE, then I’m as free as any other citizen to come on and make political commentary as long as that free speech doesn’t compromise my job performance or my functional role as a worker for the government. As for the Lois Lerner situation, once again you are conflating one issue w/another.

            http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.pdf

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not conflating anything. That’s why using “if” is relevant since I don’t know where you work.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for you attempting to demoralize me and cause me not to post because of your terroristic threat to go to my employer, yes, that does qualify as a form of terroristic threat that would adversely affect me economically.”

            Threatening to have you investigated to see if you’re violating your own employment terms is not a “terroristic threat.”

            You sound like those idiots in Ferguson. You’re completely clueless about the rights of anyone else to check on YOUR aggressive behavior as you attack conservative dissent and promote statism and socialized medicine.

          • Americana

            http://www.dmlp.org/threats/goren-v-doe

            Conclusion? You’re insane. Or maybe just insanely dumb.

          • Americana

            My so-called “aggressive behavior” doesn’t HOLD A CANDLE TO YOUR AGGRESSION, not in its flavor, not in its content, and not in its AIMS. And a court would definitely find in my favor on the SCALE and AIMS of the so-called “aggression” YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO EXHIBIT toward me if you were to carry it through to your choice of conclusion, which is to get me fired.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You and Al Sharpton would make quite a pair together.

            This train wreck is fascinating, but I have some other things to do. I’ll check the flames again later.

          • Americana

            Just because you read one legal opinion doesn’t mean that the situation is exactly identical to what you’ve indicated is the be-all and end-all description of what you’ve done. You can certainly let your ego run wild and dance your victory turkey strut and pretend all you want… That’s what makes the difference between a ho-hum lawyer who can dot his ‘is’ vs a better lawyer who can actually construct legal strategy and cite significant and appropriate case law

            I’ve never bothered to say you’ve defamed me. Why is that? It’s certainly not that it’s not something you’ve done and attempt to do almost each and every post. Could it be that I’ve got a clue what is likely actionable and what isn’t and what would be legally worthwhile to pursue and what wouldn’t be worthwhile both in terms of a legal perspective and satisfaction of the injury you intend to inflict? Loss of a job isn’t nothing in the scheme of things, isn’t necessarily negligible. But certainly I’m not doing what Lois Lerner did so you’re way off base w/your analogy of how my presence affects you on FPM. (OFM) “Conclusion? You’re insane.”) Au contraire, I’m led to the conclusion that you’re insane.

            http://www.dmlp.org/threats/goren-v-doe

          • Americana

            Obviously you haven’t checked the flames lately and recognized that you’re fried to a crisp and charred from head to toe…

          • Americana

            Guess you must have realized just how charbroiled you are since you haven’t posted in response… Always read beyond a single case in order to establish case law and be sure of the legal lay of the land. And don’t let yourself get too cocky just because you’ve read one instance where someone was able to avoid being chewed up and spit out by a legal eagle and you think that person who escaped justice was doing exactly what you’re doing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A response to your legal theories? I suggest you talk to a doctor and then consult any lawyers that you want. But you do need help and you can’t get it online.

          • Americana

            I’ve got a new meaning for OFM… It’s quite the hoot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So let’s get this straight: You think that some blogger trying to incite murder of judges is a case that shows what I did was actionable by you when I suggested that as a government employee your supervisor should be advised if you’re harassing people?

            You’re mentally ill and very stupid. When you get help for your mental problems you’ll learn to accept that you’re just stupid.

          • Americana

            Listen, dimwit, I gave you a link to ANOTHER LEGAL RESEARCH WEB SITE w/a case where a man’s livelihood was threatened by someone doing pretty much what you’re doing — threatening someone’s livelihood because someone got pissed at him. Go read that web site and that particular link about that particular case because I’m not referring at all to YOUR TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE SCENARIO in the article you posted. That death threat against several judges has NOTHING to do vis-a-vis your threat to approach my supervisor in an attempt to get me fired. Those are two different legal animals because of the types of threat. Trying to get someone fired for what you pretend to portray as real harassment is actionable only if it’s truly harassment.

            Since you are here on this web site of your own volition — I’m not PURSUING you to your house or trying to locate you, etc, etc, — you are in effect agreeing to the form and type of interaction that is ongoing between us. This is contrary to YOUR STATED INTENTION which was to hunt me down via the cyber world and then present my boss w/my posts. (Oh, the DRAMA!!!) Your interaction is all VOLUNTARY. It stops HERE for me. I don’t have any GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY all cooked up and ready to splatter all over you like you do for me, I don’t feel the need to approach your boss because I’m so furious over your political POV. And, since you were the one who initiated the libelous name calling and insults, you’ve got about zero leg to stand on as far as claiming I’m the original harassing party.

            In fact, you made the FIRST and SO FAR ONLY GENUINE THREAT in our on line acquaintance by threatening to get me fired on the basis of my being present here and voicing dissenting opinions. You seem to think the case you cited about the judges being sent death threats explains the whole legal enchilada of terroristic threats. But, since the two situations — the one you cited and the one I cited — are not at all similar in terms of what the exact threat is — threatening death to those judges in the case of your link vs threatening undertaking to achieve the firing of me in my linked case history, there’s NOTHING RELEVANT in the case you mentioned that has anything to do w/the threat you’ve made to financially damage me by getting me fired. That’s what case law is all about, finding similar cases.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I suggest you get one of your lawyer family members to log in and offer their advice. I’m happy to chat with any lawyer who you choose to represent you.

            The original point is simply that I think it’s wrong to have government employees attacking people who are critical of the expanding state. For example you promote the ACA and accepting government reports as definitive accounts. Jerry also mentioned that you have some expertise or relevant background with military statistics but he was kind of vague.

            Now if someone is coming anonymously online like you while working for the government, you and anyone else doing that should be exposed. If anyone else is coming online with any kind of hidden agenda and harassing people, it’s easier to appeal to their employers to check for violations than it is to sue in court or to get law enforcement to help.

            Actually what I’m doing is suggesting LEGAL channels for dealing with people that might be doing illegal or unethical things online, like aggressively promoting statism and shouting down dissent of the state while drawing a check from that state.

            See, this site is consistently critical of certain politicians. This site is about criticism of the government and certain trends. You’re here to participate, but when you try to filibuster dissent, this is you coming to a site to stifle the discourse, not to explore the views of the dissenters. Your views are already well publicized and you have plenty of places to go and rant. Furthermore, your objections to the legitimate dissent are not removed. Your views are not being stifled if people ask you to stop harassing dissenters in such aggressive and repetitive fashion.

            You’re promoting statism as if the state and you are victims. You’re quite insane.

          • Americana

            I am not doing illegal or unethical things on line. What’s more, you likely know that. But you’ve consistently attempted to SMEAR me by making TOTALLY BASELESS ACCUSATIONS about such things as I’m a government employee and that I’m coming on line during my government work hours, that I’m collecting money for political purposes illegally, etc. You are simply inventing the story as you go and using all the TYPICAL SLURS and STORY LINES that are the lifeblood of the site. The fact NONE of your guesses are even remotely close is symptomatic of just how tainted your world view is by your political viewpoint.

            As for me bringing my family members who are lawyers on here to deal w/your baseless accusations, no, absolutely not. If it comes to a real confrontation, we’ll face you cold turkey in court w/only the on line exchanges we’ve so far generated as the material you and your lawyer are provided. You’re not going to be given a chance to nitpick their thinking under the guise of innocent internet chit chat. Besides, they wouldn’t be dumb enough to participate given that it might come to legal action if you continue to threaten my livelihood.

            You don’t have a clue what free speech is about if you claim that you can prevent government employees from coming on here and talking politics in the same fashion you’re talking politics if such participation is not prohibited by their job. ANYONE can come on here and talk about their political views without any threat of repercussions as long as that is permitted by their job description and duties and it’s an agreed upon principle at their company they may express political opinions if they use company computers at any time.

            There IS NO WAY TO FILIBUSTER IN THE CYBER WORLD, dimwit. You don’t want to read my opinions and posts, don’t read them. But the fact I post here is not “FILIBUSTERING,” which is the prevention of someone seizing the lectern and making their point because someone else has been speaking for millennia or as long as their bladder holds out w/the intention of preventing another person from speaking to the audience. It’s as simple as that — you BYPASS MY POSTS. But you don’t get to CURATE the web site and choose who posts and who doesn’t post and you don’t get to edit and delete posts at will along w/deleting posters who annoy you. You want to override my opinion about the function of the POTUS or anything else, write factual posts that sell your perspective. Don’t immediately resort to writing invective because you’ve got NO BETTER MATERIAL HANDY TO KNOCK ME ON MY AZZ. This is democracy at work. Suck it up. You win here or anywhere, such as it is, by writing TRUTH TO POWER.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You win here or anywhere, such as it is, by writing TRUTH TO POWER.”

            OMG you don’t know what anything means.

            We’re offering dissent. We’re addressing concerns to those in power. You’re protecting and offering excuses for those in power.

            You’re so dumb.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s what case law is all about, finding similar cases.”

            It’s a little more structured than you seem to think.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Americana

            From your link:

            Lawyers can only help when the online conduct crosses the line into a cognizable cause of action. Figuring that out is the hard part.
            __________________________________________________________________________

            Here’s an interesting case and judgment that mentions the word “obedience” just like you did in a recent post:

            By Gabriella Khorasanee, JD on June 27, 2013 9:01 AM

            Let’s say a blogger doesn’t agree with your political views and writes a blog post saying you “deserve to be killed(FIRED).” Not great news, but the First Amendment protects political speech, right?

            What if the blogger takes it a step further and also shares your photo, your work address (along with suite number) and photos of your workplace? Threatened yet?

            Let’s say the blogger also references your colleague’s family’s murders that occurred years ago because of differing political opinions? Still not threatened?

            In United States of America v. Turner, the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that these statements were a “true threat” as directed to Seventh Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Posner and Bauer by blogger Harold Turner. The disgruntled blogger didn’t agree with the judges’ opinions in National Rifle Association of America v. Chicago (later reversed in McDonald v. City of Chicago), where they held that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to municipalities and states.

            Political Hyperbole or True Threat of Violence?

            The exact text from Turner’s blog post reads:

            If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving (by continuing in their employment), other Judges (other employees) will act the same way. These Judges (employees) deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary (federal employee ranks): Obey the Constitution or die. … [the Judges have not] faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience … [and their ruling is] so sleazy and cunning as to deserve the ultimate response … [then they] deserve to be killed (FIRED).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re quite insane.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 3 minutes ago

            From your link:

            Lawyers can only help when the online conduct crosses the line into a cognizable cause of action. Figuring that out is the hard part.
            __________________________________________________________________________

            Here’s an interesting case and judgment that mentions the word “obedience” just like you did in a recent post:

            By Gabriella Khorasanee, JD on June 27, 2013 9:01 AM

            Let’s say a blogger doesn’t agree with your political views and writes a blog post saying you “deserve to be killed(FIRED).” Not great news, but the First Amendment protects political speech, right?

            What if the blogger takes it a step further and also shares your photo, your work address (along with suite number) and photos of your workplace? Threatened yet?

            Let’s say the blogger also references your colleague’s family’s murders that occurred years ago because of differing political opinions? Still not threatened?

            In United States of America v. Turner, the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that these statements were a “true threat” as directed to Seventh Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Posner and Bauer by blogger Harold Turner. The disgruntled blogger didn’t agree with the judges’ opinions in National Rifle Association of America v. Chicago (later reversed in McDonald v. City of Chicago), where they held that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to municipalities and states.

            Political Hyperbole or True Threat of Violence?

            The exact text from Turner’s blog post reads:

            If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving (by continuing in their employment), other Judges (other employees) will act the same way. These Judges (employees) deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary (federal employee ranks): Obey the Constitution or die. … [the Judges have not] faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience … [and their ruling is] so sleazy and cunning as to deserve the ultimate response … [then they] deserve to be killed (FIRED).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Basically what I see is that you regurgitate leftist opinions that you probably don’t quite understand. You understand very little about the law and even less about economics. You know how to slur banks or any other demonized group and point to articles with leftist attacks. That’s about it. Obviously anyone that says what you say about my alleged “terroristic threat” after saying so many stupid things as alleged criticism of “capitalism” based on (once again) your misunderstanding of leftist criticism, and someone that spews it endlessly the way that you do, needs a psychiatric intervention.

            I have no knowledge of who you are and I don’t care. But just reading what you write I know for a fact that you need some kind of medication and that you’ve probably been medicated before to help with psychiatric issues. You really should take a more conservative approach and report honestly to your doctors how you clash with everyone and go on maniacal tirades and make paranoid accusations, all while characterizing any critics of your beloved leaders as “conspiracy theorists.”

            Trying to master talking points to use online is not really a productive life. You just piss people off and make them laugh at you.

          • Americana
          • Americana

            I never “regurgitate anything I don’t understand.” That’s a given in my style of debate and discussion. I absorb data, I read and research and then I feel free to post my assessments of situations. As for who’s spending their time “trying to master talking points,” and not succeeding, that’s you rather than me.

            I’m not the one whose sentences are totally backassward in their intention and/or run contrary to my previously stated positions. Like this following sentence, which is carefully crafted to not really disclose what it’s in reference to but which I can only surmise is related to the banks being allowed to ONCE AGAIN trade in highly-risky derivatives w/the FULL CREDIT of the U.S. TREASURING INSURING those investments if they go belly up. This measure was included in this budget appropriation bill. It eviscerates the intention of the Dodd-Frank bill that was meant to rectify the dissolution of the two forms of banking.

            Care to FULLY explain what this sentence of yours means:

            (OFM) “You know how to slur banks or any other demonized group and point to articles with leftist attacks.”

            I take it from your above sentence, you’re in favor of the banks dismantling the Dodd-Frank act even though you BEMOANED THE PREVIOUS FEDERAL BAILOUT of the banks that was a direct result of American banks’ previous massive foray into the sales of derivates that spread our own personal flavor of financial disaster around the world???? On this score, you’ll have to really, really try hard to explain your point of view because to me those two positions should be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m sure I’ve got adequate numbers arrayed against you and laughing right alongside me about the things you write… This CONSTANT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY OTHERS as psychiatric patients??? Lordy, but that is the default defensive/offensive position of someone who doesn’t have a leg to stand on in an argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why you think it’s a bad idea to talk to your doctor about this?

          • Americana

            I’d only ever patronize doctors who had the sense to laugh at some of the wild and wacky things you write. Count my doctors as being on my side rather than your side even if I were to throw Obamacare into the mix.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s good if you’re talking to doctors about these emotionally charged sessions you have. Keep doing that. We’re all laughing with you and we all want you to get better.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago

            “Oh, I’m sure I’ve got adequate numbers arrayed against you and laughing right alongside me about the things you write…”

            Of course you are correct. The thing is that all of those “people” are in your own head. That’s kind of what I’m driving at.

            “This CONSTANT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY OTHERS as psychiatric patients??”

            This is again in your imagination. There are probably no more than 5 trolls that have been (correctly) advised to seek medical help. Statistically that means I’ve probably missed some folks, But this is just an online forum for political discussions. I think you expect the wrong things.

          • Americana

            Hahaha, if it were only “5 trolls that have been (correctly) advised to seek medical help,” then why is it that such ANTI-TROLL deterrent remarks can be regularly found all over these sites? Do I need to count the number of so-called trolls at whom you’ve directed this fusillade of effed up psychobabble advice? It’s a pretty significant number, don’t kid yourself. I’ve read your posts for a long time… (Actually, I’m not going to let this one slide. I’m going off to count how many people to whom you offer this identical advice.) It’s the go-to deterrence tactic for all such sites. Jihad Watch even had Duh_Swami himself (the Big Kahuna) claiming he was a psychiatrist and that he knew exactly which medications he’d prescribe. It’s LUDICROUS the use you folks make of psychobabble like claims of narcissism and the like. You’ve got about as much credibility to having any psychiatric skills as your local Zamboni driver.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What percentage of trolls do think would benefit from psychological or psychiatric therapies?

            http://kotaku.Com/5938996/the-worst-internet-trolls-might-be-mentally-ill

          • Americana

            Ah, but that’s a matter of who actually qualifies as a troll. Considering you are using the word troll simply to label your political enemies as persona non grata effectively leaves you w/no real similarities as to how trolls are labeled in the cyberworld. Here’s a pretty good example of someone who’s a troll in my view. He’s not interested in ideas, not interested in real conversations or solutions, he’s simply interested in saying hurtful, hateful stuff. Boy, considering how much hurtful, hateful stuff you churn out, maybe you’d better consider yourself as having joined the Troll Club. Off to compile a list of those you’ve labeled trolls on these various Horowitz web sites and some of the identical niceties you’ve handed out like confetti for years.

            This guy, to me, is a person who qualifies as a troll:

            A troll who goes by “Ben” in the article has gotten into some troubling stuff:

            “It just makes me happy when I can make someone angry. It sounds weird but I kind of feed off their anger. The angrier I can get them, the better I feel,” he told news.com.au.

            He usually only trolls a post or website once before moving, not out of any sense of decency, but because he is scared of being arrested.

            He said the worst thing he ever did was vandalise the Facebook memorial page of a young girl who had committed suicide. “I wrote, ‘How’s it hanging guys’.”

            He doesn’t feel any remorse, and strangely doesn’t consider his actions bullying despite claiming he probably wouldn’t have started trolling if he had not been bullied at school.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A troll is someone that comes and picks fights with commenters on sites that they disagree with and expects to have the last word even after repeating their victim narratives and delusional tirades for weeks or more.

            You disagree with the site’s goals. You disagree with virtually every author. You disagree with virtually ever commenter, and you just stick around to declare yourself the winner over and over again to harass people.

            Not that I’m expecting self-awareness from you. That’s why I suggest you talk to medical professionals.

            I’m completely conscious of the fact that I troll the worst of the trolls. I don’t troll sites that have commenters I disagree with. I might comment some times but I don’t try to filibuster conversations. At worse I’ll call someone a dumbass at a leftist site for talking about how Reagan raised taxes x number of times or something really stupid. But then I let it go.

            You? You’re nuts.

          • Americana

            Challenging you on falsehoods is not trolling. No matter how often you claim that it is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The question then becomes whether you’re competent to judge any of it, including your own behavior. I think not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Any troll can say that.

          • Americana

            Any troll can say that, as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Most apes can’t type as well as you. It’s impressive.

          • Americana

            You’re lucky you’ve got opposing thumbs. I can’t imagine what you’d do if you were anymore ham-fisted than you are.

          • Americana

            You’re lucky you’ve got opposing thumbs. I can’t imagine you being any more ham-fisted than you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yeah, stick with trying to ape other people. That’s a good use of your time while you’re waiting for ACA confirmation of your psychiatric coverage.

          • Americana

            I’m hardly the sort to “ape other people” but I can understand why you’d try to follow through on keeping the whole ape line of attack going.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            See, the point is that you do exactly that. It’s one of your tactics.

          • Americana

            See, the craziness is that you practice this wackiness in your Sir Spamalot role as BB Supervisor of Behaviour and Political Correctness. The tactics you’ve employed are old hat. Look at the lovely and nearly identical array of comments to those I receive as your regular daily little love notes in less than 1 minute of looking:

            Andy Kreiss — (OFM) “You’re a little paranoid.” “Dumbass.”

            TylerDurden — (OFM) “I don’t understand your emotional investment here. Get psychiatric help.”

            DoctorMikeAnderson — (OFM) “You’re a moron.” “Dumbass reverend.”

            You don’t see the pattern? The world at large sure does. It’s no skin off my nose to keep putting you in your place. hieronymous sees you as a speed bump. I’ve adopted his view.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You noticed that I talk to other dumbasses? Whoa! Anyone reading in context will see the points I’m making.

            So you’re opposed to professional psychiatry. That’s not surprising considering your condition. You just have to work through it.

          • Americana

            I’ve got no objections to professional psychiatry. I object to your misuse of propaganda tactics reliant on smearing people’s mental health status. You’re a CLASSIC TROLL w/ALL THE BELLS and WHISTLES jangling away.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            I attack trolls like you. That’s not classic trolling. But never mind all of that. You have much bigger problems to worry about.

            So get professional help. OK?

          • Americana

            Oh, the way you do it’s pretty darn classic trolling. The only difference is that you stay in the same cave rather than roam around the whole internet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If I troll people like you at a Horowitz site, it’s not exactly like I’m out looking for targets, now is it.

            People like you are asking for trouble. As you say, it’s standard tactic to treat you this way or something. So what is the common denominator? The common denominator is you bugging the crap out of people because you’re a freaking troll looking for trouble.

          • Americana

            Nah, you just don’t brook any interference from others w/differing points of view even if they come equipped w/facts to back up their views. Your anxiety to label anyone and everyone as a Big Statist and this, that, and the other is indicative of someone who’s totally in propaganda mode.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Two rules:

            1) Don’t lie
            2) Don’t peddle bullshirt

          • Americana

            You’d BEST OBSERVE THOSE RULES yourself before preaching them to others. It’s especially silly for you to take this high-minded propagandized approach to lecturing others when the others to whom you’re preaching (your Gospel According to OFM) certainly 1) don’t lie; and 2) don’t peddle bullish*t.

            Improve yourself before attempting to improve others. That’s pretty much been the edict since kindergarten, maybe the middle of elementary school at the latest. If large numbers of others can see where you need room for improvement, there’s doubtless room for improvement. I’ve seen enough people come down on you and your posts that you’d better take your own rules to heart. Since we now have proof that you KNOW THESE RULES, let’s see if you ABIDE BY THEM. I’ll be placing a few bets w/some folks as to HOW LONG IT IS before the first breaking of OFMD’s rules of BB propriety are broken.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Those are the rules. I choose my priorities according to my particular objectives. I already told you that filibuster trolls are my highest priority. My actions are totally transparent.

            Now you go and work on yourself. Good luck.

          • Americana

            Those are the rules? You mean there are published ethics rules for this place and you wrote them? Hmmmm, then I wonder why you flout both of them so often?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            Those are my rules. Yes they’ve been published before. I am the final authority regarding my rules. Your objections are noted.

          • Americana

            Those are your rules. I’d say they’re more like YOUR RUSE. But what’s in a word?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nah, you just don’t brook any interference from others w/differing points of view even if they come equipped w/facts to back up their views. ”

            “Facts” like the Constitution’s “health clause” can be used to justify the “right to health care?”

          • Americana

            You mistake “FACTS” for “OPINONS” and vice versa.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Um, not I don’t, confused communist.

          • Americana

            I’m totally accurate. Your “facts” are “opinions” and vice versa. You’ve never seen a fact you couldn’t abuse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Zing again!

          • Americana

            Yes, ZIIIIINNNNNGGGG! You’ve chosen quite the misnomer for yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I looked it up for you:

            http://crisisservices.Org/content/index.php/24-hour-hotline/

            You’re welcome.

          • Americana

            Interesting that you’d have this number on speed dial…

          • Americana

            TROLL HARD, TOOL.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK then.

          • Americana

            Considering how various people of significance lampoon you, I’m in good company…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your fantasy life is pretty scary to hear about. It’s weird to see unhealthy people like you unravel their minds online.

          • Americana

            Le Fin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t see the pattern?”

            The pattern is that you’re at the top of the list of all the crazies.

          • Americana

            Oh, look, someone up voted me on my post about the CRominbus bill and you haven’t yet had the guts to write a reply to that discussion point about our biggest banks being able to commit the U.S. to bailing them out again should derivatives go south again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 8 minutes ago: “Oh, look, someone up voted me on my post about the CRominbus bill and you haven’t yet had the guts to write a reply to that discussion point about our biggest banks being able to commit the U.S. to bailing them out again should derivatives go south again.”

            Guts to respond? What exactly do you think this is?

          • Americana

            You claimed I was “slurring banks” in one of your posts. I want to know if you think the rollback of some provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act was a slur against banks or if you think it’s a wise move. Let’s see some of your prognostication at work!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            False dichotomy. And you’re retarded. Why would you ask me about banking regulations when you don’t know the first thing about any of it?

            There are pros and cons to any set of regulations. They should be viewed in terms of the entire system and how each suggested change effects the system.

            I would change nothing right now in terms of regulating offerings and opportunities for financial institutions. I would pass a new law that clearly spells out culpability on a sliding scale (phased in over time) where the banks have to clearly, by law, assume more risk with clear language that no bailouts will occur in the future. It’s up to shareholders to decide about risks. Separate from that if there are discussions about bring more disclosure laws or limiting specific practices that are deemed illegal, those are separate discussions.

            Future bank failures or accusations of wrongdoing should be settled in court rather than allowing people to go begging to Congress and use fear mongering and demagoguery.

            These suggestions, if followed, would slowly deflate the bubbles that lead to crashes in the first place. And I oppose massive bills like this as a principle. You can’t solve complex problems by cramming political solutions in to massive year end bills. The whole thing is ridiculous.

          • Americana

            I’ve got private coverage but thanks for the giggle over your biased ignorance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Zing!!!

          • Americana

            How do you know I disagree w/the site’s goals? I agreed w/a writer today that it’s terrible the Dodd-Frank Act was dismantled in significant ways simply to get this appropriation bill passed. Your response to my pointing out that this gutting of Dodd-Frank is an example of the worst form of crony capitalism is (seemingly) to indicate in another, unrelated thread that “I was slurring banks”. (So far, you haven’t been willing to clarify if that is, indeed, why you wrote the p*ssy line about me “slurring banks”. However, in this case, I agreed w/the FPM writer but I’ve now found myself in disagreement w/you? Which means what in the overall scheme of things, that I’ve got potential to become a worthwhile contributor to FPM because I agreed w/this writer??

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You have a pattern of trying to disrupt the discourse. That doesn’t mean that you can’t possibly be a legitimate participant some of the time.

            It’s not like I’m following you around and attacking every opinion that you have even when I don’t agree with you. I respond to you when I think you go off the deep end. Like your obsession for attacking people that are not satisfied with the official responses wrt Benghazi and your lesser obsession with defending the ACA and Marxist notions of “rights.”

            I’d probably even let you slide if the sum of your attacks was not so great. But clearly, no matter what anyone can say about me, you are here to disrupt and attack dissent. But because you use your feelings as a guide and you consider yourself to be sincere you think that’s all that matters.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana an hour ago: “How do you know I disagree w/the site’s goals?”

            3161 comments, 467 upvotes.

          • Americana

            Such a simplistic view of the world.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you agree with Horowitz’s goals?

            Tell me about it.

          • Americana

            Nah, you’ll pick up on it over time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point is that I already have.

            “The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.”

            This site opposes people like you.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/about/about-fpm/

            About David Horowitz Freedom Center

            OUR MISSION: The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

            The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded. Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

          • Americana

            That’s very simplistic to gauge someone’s appreciation of the site’s goals on the basis of my total number of up votes.

            I agreed w/Arnold Ahlert today on the dismantling of the Dodd-Frank Act. You seemingly have disagreed w/my view and Ahlert’s view of that as being potentially catastrophically destructive for the country because it may force the country to bail out those very same banks that caused the last meltdown. In fact, you may have backhandedly knocked my perspective on the Dodd-Frank Act’s dismantling by saying, “I was slurring banks”. Well, here we have a perfect example of you knocking me yet here I am endorsing what an FPM writer has to say. He’s the writer on FPM, you’re not. Does he better represent FPM or do you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago

            “Oh, I’m sure I’ve got adequate numbers arrayed against you and laughing right alongside me about the things you write…”

            Of course you are correct. The thing is that all of those “people” are in your own head. That’s kind of what I’m driving at.

            “This CONSTANT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY OTHERS as psychiatric patients??”

            This is again in your imagination. There are probably no more than 5 trolls that have been (correctly) advised to seek medical help. Statistically that means I’ve probably missed some folks, But this is just an online forum for political discussions. I think you expect the wrong things.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://blogs.findlaw.Com/second_circuit/2013/06/true-threat-or-political-speech-2nd-circuit-rules-on-free-speech.html

            Political Hyperbole or True Threat of Violence? The exact text from Turner’s blog post reads:
            If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other Judges will act the same way. These Judges deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die. … [the Judges have not] faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience … [and their ruling is] so sleazy and cunning as to deserve the ultimate response … [then they] deserve to be killed.

            Your version:

            The exact text from Turner’s blog post reads:
            If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving (by continuing in their employment), other Judges (other employees) will act the same way. These Judges (employees) deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary (federal employee ranks): Obey the Constitution or die. … [the Judges have not] faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience … [and their ruling is] so sleazy and cunning as to deserve the ultimate response … [then they] deserve to be killed (FIRED).

            Conclusion? You’re insane.

          • Americana

            An on line threat to attempt to terminate someone’s employment on the basis of them annoying someone like you on line w/their political views is not a negligible threat. Substitute the word “FIRED” for the word “KILLED” and you begin to reshape the legal picture. Here’s another lawsuit that resulted in a different outcome than you’d like to see:

            http://www.dmlp.org/threats/goren-v-doe

            From the above:

            The complaint listed three causes of action: libel, equitable and injunctive relief, and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. Goren claimed that the Report constituted libel per se and was susceptible only of a defamatory meaning, alleging that the defamatory per se publication was first on a Google search for Goren and that he had suffered a loss of income, damage to his reputation, and emotional distress as a direct result of the publication. Under the claim of equitable and injunctive relief, the complaint alleged that the continued republication of the Report on Google, Bing, and other online search engines presented a continuing threat of irreparable harm to Goren, warranting entry of a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction enjoining Doe from continuing to publish the Report. The complaint then alleged that Doe’s actions constituted intentional interference with Goren’s prospective contractual relations and that Goren had suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of this interference.

            On November 26, 2012, a justice of the Superior Court entered a preliminary injunction against publishing or republishing the Report. The court held the Report presented a “continuing threat of irreparable harm” to Goren that could not be remedied by an award of damages.

            On March 20, 2013, the court entered a default judgment against the defendants and issued a permanent injunction. The judgment noted that Goren had dismissed his claims for libel and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, leaving only a claim for equitable and injunctive relief. The court permanently enjoined the defendants — now referred to as Defendant John Doe d/b/a Arabianights-Boston, Massachusetts, n/k/a Christian DuPont, and Defendant Steven DuPont a/k/a Steven Christian DuPont — from publishing or republishing the Report. The court ordered Doe to “take any and all necessary steps and action necessary or appropriate” to remove, retract, and/or delete the Report from the website. Further, the court appointed Goren as “attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, with the power of substitution, in the name and place of” Doe to take all necessary steps to remove the Report.

            On March 25, 2013, Goren filed a motion to amend the default judgment and permanent injunction. The motion proposed that the court add an assignment and transfer of the copyright of the Report to Goren “[t]o achieve the purpose of the Default Judgment.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 17 hours ago: “Listen, dim bulb, you are issuing a threat.”
            It is indeed a threat. It’s simply not one that gives you any cause of action or reason to complain to law enforcement.
            I’m going to eat this last potato chip and there is NOTHING you can do about it! Take that!
            ‘Cause of action! Call Al Sharpton! He’s torturing me!’

          • Americana

            Yes, sure it gives me reason to pursue legal action. If you pursue me IRL and attempt to interfere w/my livelihood because you don’t like perfectly legitimate political discourse, that’s your choice to harass me. Your aim is to cause me financial harm. I wouldn’t bother w/going to law enforcement, I’d head straight to court. You don’t catch me making such pathetic claims about wishing to do such things because I disagree w/you. What’s the difference between us? It’s certainly a significant difference.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 17 minutes ago

            “Yes, sure it gives me reason to pursue legal action. If you pursue me IRL and attempt to interfere w/my livelihood because you don’t like perfectly legitimate political discourse, that’s your choice to harass me.”

            You won’t know what I do until I do it. You can’t just keep inventing things.

            I’m not concerned in any way about defending my actions.

            Bluster and bluff on, crazy child.

            “Your aim is to cause me financial harm. I wouldn’t bother w/going to law enforcement, I’d head straight to court. You don’t catch me making such pathetic claims about wishing to do such things because I disagree w/you. What’s the difference between us? It’s certainly a significant difference.”

            With all of those people arguing in your head and all the others in your head that agree with you and laugh at me, maybe you can find a court in your head that claims jurisdiction and all of you together as a community (in your head) can sue me and collect infinite piles of gold as a damage award all in that creative head of yours. If that’s how you like to live…carry on.

          • Americana

            Neither will you know what I decide to do until I do it. Talk about “bluster and bluff on, crazy man”, you’ve got the edge on me on all those things. The stupidity of your final paragraph says it all…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 8 minutes ago: “Neither will you know what I decide to do until I do it.”

            Oh my gorsh! Terroristic threat!!! I’ve been threatened!

          • Americana

            Are you just playing dumb again? That’s taking you to court. That is not a terroristic threat. That’s a legal action and is well within my rights if you continue to threaten action against my livelihood.

          • Americana

            It doesn’t matter how many conditionals you use if you persist in the terroristic behavior and you give every indication that you intend to follow through w/your destructive intentions, buddy. Read that link I provided and THOROUGHLY READ OVER a few dozen of the threat category cases and you’ll recognize where you fall on a scale of 1 (not likely to execute the damaging action) to 10 (very likely to execute the damaging action).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            YOu’re got quite a few issues screwed up.

            But let’s stipulate that there is nothing illegal about having a monkey hammer out allegations the way that you are. So you’re not breaking any law to file a frivolous lawsuit, Go right ahead. That will be more amusing than hearing you puke out your delusions online.

            It is however a completely different standard to sit and argue which statutes and which case precedents you would use to guide you in crafting your complaint.

            So far all you’ve done is point to a case of incitement to murder as some kind of parallel to me saying that obnoxious people should be reported to their supervisors. I can offer that assertion globally without any qualifiers and you still have no cause of action. I have broken no laws nor caused you any harm where you could hope to recover anything from filing any kind of lawsuit.

            You’re completely delusional. You don’t know where reality ends and your imagination begins. You need medical help. It’s actually sad to watch people break down online with no apparent ability to recover any sense of dignity on their own.

          • Americana

            Are you just truly malicious or are you so truly dumb that you’re going to claim I’M THE ONE who picked out the example of the case where death threats were made against judges as being my best choice for ‘terroristic threat’ case law? That WAS YOUR CASE SELECTION for an example of how the law works, NOT MINE. I provided a link to a case where a man’s livelihood was threatened. Which is pretty much a match for what I’m facing w/you. The man was granted an injunction. He won his case. Care to dispute that? Your dignity is always in question since you refuse to admit your mistakes, you lie to cover up every instance of your own f*ckupz. Talk about delusional.

            (OFM) “So far all you’ve done is point to a case of incitement to murder as some kind of parallel to me saying that obnoxious people should be reported to their supervisors.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No idiot, I gave you an article. The article was a primer. You cited and modified one case from the article. You really are psychotic.

            “I provided a link to a case where a man’s livelihood was threatened. Which is pretty much a match for what I’m facing w/you.”

            You’re threatening your own livelihood if you’re breaking work rules. Otherwise you have nothing to worry about.

            The case is pretty much a match for how you feel? Yeah, that’s the legal standard alright. Your feelings about the “health” clause of the Constitution and whether you “feel” threatened you can go on psychotic rants about how you’re being wronged and so forth.

            You’re a complete kook. And it IS legitimate to report crazy behavior to employers. Why would it not be? You’re insane. It’s up to your employer to decide if you’ve violated their policies. The “threat” is to hold you accountable for your behavior without getting the state involved.

            But you “feel” different and you “feel” that you’re always right. How do you know? Because you’d feel wrong if you were not right. All according to your feelings.

            This is all very interesting to see how you turn a comment in to a big case about how you’re victimized by “terroristic threats.”

            You’re insane.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            How can you read a primer that I gave you and then cite one case as if I cited that case? See how f’ed your logic is? You can use that case to show how far removed it is if you want. But you cited the case as parallel, even going so far as to mark it up to show (approximately) what your logic was.

            You’re not even smart enough to follow the clues revealing how stupid you are.

          • Americana

            I didn’t mark it up to show it as a parallel, rather I marked it up to show where the differences would lie when someone threatens someone’s livelihood vs threatens someone in the way you understand the term “terroristic threat”. Don’t play dumb. It’s so doggone unbecoming and you do it SO OFTEN.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 23 minutes ago: “I didn’t mark it up to show it as a parallel, rather I marked it up to show where the differences would lie when someone threatens someone’s livelihood vs threatens someone in the way you understand the term “terroristic threat”. Don’t play dumb. It’s so doggone unbecoming and you do it SO OFTEN.”

            Dumbass,

            The case you cited has almost no relevant analogs. The case you cited was about incitement to break the law in a very serious manner. Murder is >serious.<

            And obviously when you inserted your alleged analogs you were trying to show parallels. Murder is more or less like calling someone's boss? In your world. You're so freaking insane!!!

          • Americana

            I wasn’t drawing any analogies. I was altering the paradigm since you’ve consistently claimed you haven’t threatened me and showed that just because you made an economic threat rather than a physical one, it still would qualify as a life-altering event. I’ve provided you w/a case that is exactly what we’re talking about and it was adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff. I’d hardly lay claim to the fact you’re on solid ground if I were you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why would you even use that case?

            Murder versus lawfully reporting behavior? What’s wrong with you? Do you want to know why that was considered a “terroristic threat?” Because some people worry if they have their lives threatened.

            If you feel that “threatened” about explaining yourself to your boss it probably indicates that you do need to get fired and you only have yourself to blame. If you’re “terrorized” then it’s your own fault and perhaps something to discuss with the prison psychiatrists – assuming you’re put in jail.

            But I really have no idea how much trouble you’re in. It might be entirely in your own mind. That’s why the first thing you need to do is print this whole conversation from the beginning and discuss it with professional psychiatrists. Better safe than sorry.

          • Americana

            OFM OFM OFM OFM…. Le Fin. I’ve had it w/you and your gamesmanship. Such stupidity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Stop blaming me for your stupidity. Get help.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re terrorizing me with your stupidity! And these “terroristic threats” to continue! Ahhh!!!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 23 minutes ago: “I didn’t mark it up to show it as a parallel, rather I marked it up to show where the differences would lie when someone threatens someone’s livelihood vs threatens someone in the way you understand the term “terroristic threat”. Don’t play dumb. It’s so doggone unbecoming and you do it SO OFTEN.”

            The only (sort of) valid analog would be pointing out that the judges also work for the government.

            OMG you are so stupid. You know what would be a valid response to disagreement with judges? Complaining to their bosses!

            You’re terrorizing me with stupidity! Concentrations of this kind of stupidity should not be legal! You’re using WMDs!

          • Americana

            OFM. OFM. OFM. OFM. OFM. It’s such a soothing thought to run through my new BB description of you when you post this kind of gem. Why no reference to the actual case history I posted where the man’s livelihood was threatened and he filed a lawsuit and it was adjudicated in his favor? Don’t want to think about that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why no reference to the actual case history I posted where the man’s livelihood was threatened and he filed a lawsuit and it was adjudicated in his favor? Don’t want to think about that?”

            I didn’t see that. Post the case rather than just talking about it. You already waste too much of my time.

          • Americana

            Go back through my posts. It was posted at least twice. I didn’t just talk about it. I’m not backtracking for your sake. Your pretense of being put upon is puke-worthy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Did you post an URL or the case?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your pretense of being put upon is puke-worthy.”

            A little over the top considering it might have been deleted or your memory might be the problem.

          • Americana

            Oh, by the way you’ve made A STATEMENT in the above that IS NOT CONDITIONAL. You’ve stated the fact as definitive truth. Why on earth would you posit that “I’m going around collecting money and attacking people that want smaller, more accountable government”? Not only is that mendacity taken to its most blatant, it’s beyond kooky you think I’d bother collecting money to fight against people who want smaller, more accountable government.

            (OFM) “The concern is that people like you and Lois Lerner are going around collecting money and attacking people that want smaller, more accountable government.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Hopefully you’re just feigning extreme stupidity for some reason.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How is it going for your “lawyer family” representing Brendan Eich? Surely you have much stronger speech rights to promote statism as a government employee than some douchebag rights denier that would dare to donate to Ca. Prop 8 while working in computer tech.

            I can’t wait to see what you geniuses come up with.

          • Americana

            I never said any lawyers in my family were representing Brendan Eich. What a DRAMATIC LIAR PROPAGANDIST you attempt to be! Did you undergo any training or does it just come naturally?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 11 minutes ago: “I never said any lawyers in my family were representing Brendan Eich. What a DRAMATIC LIAR PROPAGANDIST you attempt to be! Did you undergo any training or does it just come naturally?”

            http://stancarey.files.wordpress.Com/2013/03/futurama-fry-should-i-lol-or-roflmao.jpg

          • Americana

            Yessiree, Bob. Propaganda does come naturally to Mr. objectionablefactsmatter!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana a minute ago: “Yessiree, Bob. Propaganda does come naturally to Mr. objectionablefactsmatter!”

            LIBEL! The crazy communist is libeling me!

            http://www.thousandaire.Com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wambulance_logo.jpg

          • Americana

            Hardly. There’s ample proof of your willingness to indulge in the worst forms of propaganda. You’ve got propaganda covered from soup to nuts. Emphasis on the nuts…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Drama queen:

            Americana 2 minutes ago: “Hardly. There’s ample proof of your willingness to indulge in the worst forms of propaganda. You’ve got propaganda covered from soup to nuts. Emphasis on the nuts…”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, yet another obvious mistake on your part. You and your mistaken assumptions. Lordy, but you’ve become waaaaaaayyyyy too accustomed to having the run of the yard. I AM in the private sector. You wouldn’t need a lawyer, huh? I’d say if you can’t even recognize a fellow citizen and/or read her posts w/a clear head that you’ve got bigger flaws in your world view than you think.”

            That doesn’t actually make sense. But you already implied that you work for a tech company (that gave you insights wrt disgus backend protocols) while Jerry implied that your work gives you some special insights in to the Benghazi questions. Why would he imply that?

            So no, you’re wrong again. I didn’t assume anything. I recognized the conflict and pushed you on it to send you a message. The fact that you answered wasn’t even important.

            Anyway. You have a huge mouth and you really should try to cooperate more with people until you’re more certain what they’re actually saying. I can only assume that you have some kind of psychological need to battle with people you have no intention of reconciling anything with. Which also defies what you once said about your motives. You once said you’d like to see people work on understanding each other to make compromises politically. I guess you want to “compromise” just like 0′Bama wants it. You keep pushing until you get your way.

            But really I’d rather focus on more productive activities. I’m hoping lessons can be learned here but some times people like you need time to process them. And it might be a waste of time entirely each time I bother typing something for you.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “But really I’d rather focus on more productive activities. I’m hoping lessons can be learned here but some times people like you need time to process them. And it might be a waste of time entirely each time I bother typing something for you.”

            If the above were really what you intend to pursue in the future, then for you, “focusing on more productive activities” should include reading and absorbing the REALITIES of the content of other’s posts rather than SUPERIMPOSING your own thinking on their thoughts. I’ll tell you right now that typing out crude and rude comments w/absolutely no INTELLECTUAL CONTENT isn’t the way to sell me on your perspective. Either you sell me a complete package of theoretical justifications for a conspiracy theory including factual support and reasonable interpretations of events or you fail to impress me. Spouting conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and libeling one administration figure after another as support for your conspiracy theories just doesn’t cut it. This is especially true when the conspiracy theories are so unwieldy as to make absolutely no sense in the context of facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Demonstrate that your comments have value and then people will care more about understanding your ideas. Right now you’re just a big-state communist that goes around ranting at people that hurt your feelings by criticizing your delusions. So take your delusions elsewhere if all you care about is cheering on the next big fat law and the next scandal cover up.

          • Americana

            You all are the ones who feel the need to speculate about other posters’ life experiences and motives to the extent that you’d threaten someone w/contacting their boss in hopes of getting them fired because of their activities on FPM. Have you ever heard me riff on and on about the motives you’ve got or the motives of Pete or Drakken? Who’d bother w/doing that rather than focusing on the facts??? As for having a psychological need to do battle w/anyone, nah, I just like to know that genuine facts are being shared rather than having people running around ramping up the conspiracy theories without having any clue of how they should be putting the pieces together in a logical fashion to construct a conspiracy theory that holds any water.

            I’ve got a huge mouth? Not really. It’s a mouth that operates commensurate to what is presented by people like yourself. You don’t voice inanities w/which I totally disagree and I’d be liable to write less. The point of any discussion forum is NOT COOPERATION, it’s the SHARING of FACTS THAT LEAD TO ENLIGHTENMENT and shared understanding of a situation. Why you keep insisting on my “obedience to you” and that the purpose of this site is “cooperation” rather than enlightenment is anyone’s guess, but, to me, it’s pretty clear what you’re after. The fact you consider me an obstacle is simply your inability to provide the intellectual structure to supersede what I’ve got to say on certain subjects.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You all are the ones who feel the need to speculate about other posters’ life experiences and motives to the extent that you’d threaten someone w/contacting their boss in hopes of getting them fired because of their activities on FPM”

            No dumbass. The point is we’re sick of little Lerners. We’re sick of people attacking our legitimate complaints because they’re protecting their own turf dishonestly.

            What you see is what you get when you have morons running around thinking that they can endlessly negotiate over what to do with “public funds” on the assumption that there are no legal limits for setting taxes on productive people. This is what you get. Nothing but fighting. The only people that stick together are those that understand our Constitution and WHY certain provisions call for protecting property rights – among others that you don’t get.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So why don’t I actually see you trying to pursue this objective you said you were out to do? I think your pride got in your way and you didn’t like finding out that you were raised as a communist dupe. And before you fly off the handle you should actually learn what “communist” means. It’s not necessarily an accusation that you belong to an openly communist party. Marx would have considered you a communist based on your ideas and expectations of the government intervening in “social justice” remedies. You’re not hard core, but…you have it pretty bad.

          • Americana

            I’m not at all a “communist dupe” just because you say so. That’s ALWAYS your fall-back position, instead of pushing the discussion forward, you always try to denigrate your opponent by making TOTALLY FALSE and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS of their political affiliations and their aims. You’re a political dupe of the worst kind. Worse, your thinking and your productive imagination are crippled by your fantastical political landscape that doesn’t permit constructive thinking that actually processes information.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re a communist because Marx says so and you’re a dupe because you have no clue what the foundations are for your expectations and your values.

          • Americana

            You wouldn’t need a lawyer? When you shoot yourself in the foot so consistently and I could pick apart your testimony on a daily basis, are you kidding me? You’d be a fool to go it alone against me. As for your consistent claim that “I’m a government employee” and that “I’m preaching the unquestioned greatness of the Big State,” that’s not what you should be gleaning from my posts. But you choose to glean that from my posts because that’s your schtick and you think you can label me however you wish and it’s going to convince everyone who reads FPM of that fact. Hahahaha, that’ll be the day.

            I’ve consistently said there are better ways for the U.S. to strategize to support our industries against the last surge of capitalist development in the remaining Third World countries. That’s nothing but straightforward capitalism and obviously some American companies are agreeing w/me since we’re seeing a return of American companies to manufacturing inside the U.S.

          • Americana

            Let’s just say I wouldn’t hire you for any interpretive work that involves reading text. You’d fail at it. As for “most Americans loathe government workers,” that’s not as writ in stone as you’d like to pretend.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Moron,

            You’re just a spammer. Why are you here?

          • Americana

            So, you can’t claim that you didn’t shoot yourself in the foot about Sec. Panetta? That’s a start toward honest discussion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Moron,

            Panetta is a politician. And you are a communist moron.

          • Americana

            There you go again. You don’t bother parsing any post together about Panetta’s motives other than that “he’s a politician”. As if that’ the be-all, end-all explanation! And, of course, you end on the high note of me being a “communist moron”. Well, we know who’s moronic in this crowd and what’s under your Xmas tree will certainly reflect that moronic status.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Sure, you don’t “know what happened” because you’re still pretending there was time for jets to fly from Saturn and that the armaments those jets would have been carrying were suitable for the job at hand.”

          You’re such a moronic liar.

          • Americana

            That’s not me being “a moronic liar,” that was HYPERBOLE. Since you’re such a space cadet about military matters, I thought mentioning outer space was appropriate considering the (dis)information you’ve been peddling. As for those jets having time to fly there and the weapons they carry being ideal for the job at hand, once again you seem to be talking about their role in no REAL RELATION TO THE MILITARY SITUATION. The attack was well after nightfall. The pilots would have had almost no guidance as to what should be their strategic aim. They weren’t armed w/sufficient weaponry to salvage the Benghazi situation. Yet here you are claiming that you aren’t asking these F-16s to go above and beyond their capabilities when it’s patently clear that IS what you’re asking. Sure, you haven’t argued that “Aviano is the preferred place to rely on for responding to emergencies in Libya” but, if this were the case, then WHY BRING UP AVIANO and its F-16s all over again as YOU WERE THE ONE TO DO? Also, you act like this Aviano/F-16 business was a FRESH POINT when we all know the F-16s have been a dead issue for two years.

            (OFM) “I have not presented any scenarios that defy any physical laws or any require any of our hardware to go beyond actual capabilities. Nor have I ever argued that Aviano is the preferred place to rely on for responding to emergencies in Libya and so forth.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not me being “a moronic liar,” that was HYPERBOLE”

            It’s both. Your root assertion is that I’m being entirely unrealistic and then you used hyperbole so that you could shield (somewhat) your desire to act deceptively.

          • Americana

            Yeah, right. It’s NOT “BOTH” things. It’s solely hyperbole. That’s why a military man like hieronymous has told you in no uncertain terms that F-16s can’t operate in a negative intelligence environment. F-16s also can’t function in an environment where the enemy have penetrated too closely into the area where friendlies are.

            Act deceptively? You mean like you’re acting?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sure, you haven’t argued that “Aviano is the preferred place to rely on for responding to emergencies in Libya” but, if this were the case, then WHY BRING UP AVIANO and its F-16s all over again as YOU WERE THE ONE TO DO? Also, you act like this Aviano/F-16 business was a FRESH POINT when we all know the F-16s have been a dead issue for two years.”

            I’ve explained many times and you refuse to pay attention. Or you are incapable.

            Aviano is a FIXED point. That’s why it’s a starting place to talk about what was available that night and why various options were not used. They can’t say “the base was not in the area” the way that fleet movements can be used to dismiss criticism. Although they more or less indicated that in their official view F16s are not very useful for responding to anything as far as they’re concerned since allegedly it takes 8 to 20 hours (depending on who you believe) to launch them and that fits with whatever plans they did create. So it was in fact very useful to press the issue. It’s a way to start from the lowest common denominator and eventually if at the end you find out that no contingency planning was created at all for Libya, even in light of the fact that we had recently removed the sovereign, that’s information that can be used to judge leadership.

            But really, why do you make me repeat myself? Why do you expect a different outcome just because you keep piling on your whiny drama?

            In web forum parlance from communists like you, F16s are LOL Meaningless these days unless we start fighting the Chinese or the Russians. Oh, you can use them to help attack Iran or some other state, maybe, but only after we take them out storage. And that would be just fine IF you have BETTER options ready to roll. And those are…what?

            Anyway, that’s the official party line on that. For now. But that’s not the end of our inquiries. That’s not really what we’re after.

          • Americana

            Ah, but NONE of what you’ve presented in this latest thread is NEW INFORMATION or even RELATIVELY NEW information. So either you’re refusing to pay attention or you’re incapable of asking incisive new questions that elicit answers that reveal new information. Or, far more likely, you don’t have any new concepts that sufficiently attack the government’s explanation to bring any new theory forward. I mean, look at what you said this time in mentioning Libya. Your whole schtick about Libya is that (OFM) “we broke it and we left it” w/no recognition whatsoever that the situation is nearly identical to what happened in Iraq (after Pres. Bush’s war there) barring the increase in regional jihadist pressure being omnipresent and barring the fact we spent a decade in Iraq trying “to fix what we broke” w/only limited success. And our limited success is being overrun by ISIL forces even as we write. So, if “breaking it and leaving it” were the sum total for the reasons as to WHY what is going on is going on in Libya, then you shouldn’t have written such an INANE ANALYSIS of the regional issues as they’re playing out in Libya.

            As for whiny drama, you’re the dramaturge who keeps on scripting the identical posts from one year to the next on Benghazi and who doesn’t expect people to remember what went on in prior go-rounds. What you wrote in the above post — OFM – “Although they more or less indicated that in their official view F16s are not very useful for responding to anything as far as they’re concerned since allegedly it takes 8 to 20 hours (depending on who you believe) to launch them and that fits with whatever plans they did create. So it was in fact very useful to press the issue.”) — means that you aren’t knowledgeable about urban warfare because you focused solely on the TIMEFRAME of getting F-16s launched rather than the WEAPONRY and the TACTICS NEEDED to succeed in beating back an enemy that had already penetrated the consular compound by the time the F-16s would have arrived.

            Anyone reading your posts should come away w/two things clear in their minds, your news is OLD NEWS and it’s RAMBO thinking. It’s jingoistic patriotism to believe that our military can do anything and everything regardless of the circumstances.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Or, far more likely, you don’t have any new concepts that sufficiently attack the government’s explanation to bring any new theory forward. ”

            Listen carefully, dummy. OK?

            I’m not satisfied at this time. There is nothing you can do to clarify anything. Your pretense of certainty is ridiculous. The things that are controversial will remain controversial until more hard facts come out. Hearing about the maximum velocity or range of any particular helicopter or your fantasies about launching planes from some other planet all adds up to more chaff.

            I’m not satisfied. That doesn’t mean anything in particular that they’ve said is a lie. But I would need more details before mounting a clear criticism of the administration. It’s possible they’re lying by omission. I assume that they are. I just don’t know what they’re omitting.

            Can you get that through your thick skull? I’m not satisfied and there is nothing you can do but throw up chaff and act like a gullible statist. And most communists in the West are gullible statists. So it’s all very predictable and boring. It is somewhat interesting to see how far you’ll carry this just to try to impugn people you hate for opposing your delusional Utopian fantasies about what a bigger state can do for you by reining in “capitalism” and continuously adding more goodies to your constitutional “health” provisioning expectations.

          • Americana

            If you’re so dumb that you can’t remain “on target” and you’ve got to constantly add more layers to the discussion, more insanity to you and in your life.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’ve made yourself the target. I said weeks ago that I’m good for now on Benghazi but certain people want to spike the football prematurely.

            You’re psychotic.

          • Americana

            There you go again. When you don’t have facts, resort to the propaganda of pop psychiatry and throw out some labels and hope they stick!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The fact is that you’ve made yourself a target.

          • Americana

            Hahaha, we are all targets on web sites dealing in opinions. What’s important is who is left standing w/the most intact opinion after a few days’ worth of discussion. The winning thesis should be exhibiting the least amount of damage from the intellectual shelling from others after having been shot at from every angle. If, on the other hand, someone’s thesis is full of holes, the likelihood is it’s not correct and was never on the right track.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You think you have any credibility or any of your opinions are intact?

            You’re insane. The only “opinion” you project is something along the lines of thinking that everyone that mistrusts politicians and reports spun by them is a “conspiracy theorist.”

            And your views on everything consistently show how gullible and stupid you are.

          • Americana

            If this is true, then why did you suddenly start spouting off about the Rumsfeld Doctrine?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            To stop morons like you from trying to use spin and fantastic stories to distract from presidential accountability. You know, the guy in office that we’re talking about?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If, on the other hand, someone’s thesis is full of holes, the likelihood is it’s not correct and was never on the right track.”

            Actually my opinions on POTUS scandals have been on track. Even I’m surprised at how clear the proof is that I’ve been right. I assumed in many cases that it would take longer for evidence to trickle out.

          • Americana

            There you go again w/your pervasive innuendo that you’ve got evidence and that it trickled out. If it was trickling out, I should be able to find that evidence in your posts, no? Instead, all I find is innuendo w/nothing in the way of evidence to back up those claims.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            You’re still not following.

            “If it was trickling out, I should be able to find that evidence in your posts, no?”

            So you’re testifying against me? Oh no! You don’t even follow the conversations, you lunatic! Of course you SHOULD BE able to find it but you’re not exactly motivated to play catch up now, are you.

          • Americana

            There’s no need to play catch up. If I’d ever seen you provide evidence rather than innuendo, I’m sure I’d remember it. You claim I don’t follow the conversations and that I’m a lunatic but I’m the one who tripped up Drakken w/his major lies — not once, but TWICE. You and your sneers… Ah, the days when you had this sandbox all to yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, the days when you had this sandbox all to yourself.”

            You’re probably going to need to stay at the hospital for a few weeks while the medicines take effect. Do get that treatment started soon.

          • Americana

            Nothing’s ever been needed in the way of meds and I sure don’t need to start treating myself now just because a wacko like yourself recommends that I do.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Right. Fine. But would it hurt you to talk to a doctor about all of this even if nobody else hears about it online?

            For your own good.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This is what lunatics sound like:

            “You claim I don’t follow the conversations and that I’m a lunatic but I’m the one who tripped up Drakken w/his major lies — not once, but TWICE.”

          • Americana

            Drakken lied twice. He lied about hearing “Stand Down” orders being given viz Benghazi. He lied about the failure of the U.S. to resupply Israel during Israel’s latest incursion into Palestinian territory. Who else caught those lies? I guess you don’t follow the conversations closely enough to catch lies like those. Or maybe you just avoid pointing out lies like those if they echo the Big Picture that’s being created.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t recall claiming that I monitor all Horowitz forums. You’re just another delusional kook.

          • Americana

            If I’m remembering correctly, you were right there in the conversational mix when I was arguing back and forth w/these claims Drakken had made during one of the first Benghazi go-rounds. You and Pete actually ganged up on me as I remember and backed Drakken’s version of events which were soon quashed by hieronymous recognizing what I was getting at about Drakken’s claims about him (Drakken) hearing a definitive “Stand Down” order over the radio. I’m also pretty sure you were there w/your acid commentary when Drakken made claims about the U.S. not permitting Israel to resupply itself from the American arms depot in Israel and I knew this also was not true. So, perhaps you don’t monitor all Horowitz forums but when you choose to haunt a forum I also haunt and you choose to try one-upmanship as your constant tactic, you’re rather hard to forget viz specific go-rounds.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 3 hours ago: “If I’m remembering correctly…”

            You should really check on that first before making stupid accusations.

            “You and Pete actually ganged up on me as I remember and backed Drakken’s version of events which were soon quashed by hieronymous recognizing what I was getting at about Drakken’s claims about him (Drakken) hearing a definitive “Stand Down” order over the radio.”

            Find the thread, dumbass.

            “I’m also pretty sure you were there w/your acid commentary when Drakken made claims about the U.S. not permitting Israel to resupply itself from the American arms depot in Israel and I knew this also was not true.”

            You’re either hallucinating entirely or misinterpreting what people say. I’ve commented on American THREATS to withhold arms from Israel. I’ve never commented on any time we’ve actually done that because until you can authenticate such claims there is no way to know if it’s just a rumor based on misunderstanding.

            “So, perhaps you don’t monitor all Horowitz forums but when you choose to haunt a forum I also haunt and you choose to try one-upmanship as your constant tactic, you’re rather hard to forget viz specific go-rounds.”

            So you say all before providing actual evidence. Do you expect this to go any better than your recent comparison of my threats to report ill-behaved government workers as somehow legally analogous to incitement to murder judges?

          • Americana

            Oh, but I qualified that statement by writing “if I’m remembering correctly.” That’s your ETERNAL OUT, isn’t it? So, why is it I can’t use the very same out?

            Your threat of reporting “ill-behaved government workers,” was not a general threat when you originally uttered that threat. In your original post where that threat was mentioned, you were directing the threat SPECIFICALLY AT ME. If you’re still not clear on my previous clarification on he difference between the nature of the threat you cited and the nature of the threat you made against me, they are qualitatively two different kinds of threat. Doesn’t mean they aren’t still THREATS and that either one could be actionable and both were found actionable. There was an injunction issued in the case of the man whose livelihood was threatened by business partners. Read the link I provided.

            As for me compiling a list of all your so-called trolls and trying to arrive at a semi-accurate total, I’ll be doing it over the next day or two. I’ll also be collecting some of the juiciest of the lines you use for each of them. We’ll see how much repetition there is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            In this case your “if” qualifier means that you chose not to go and find something you should be able to find rather than rely on your memory.

            You’re so stupid. I feel sorry for you.

          • Americana

            Oh, but you misunderstand the all-purpose purposes of “IF” in that sentence. Especially in the context of that aspect of today’s discussion over who’s willing to falsify their BB posts and tolerate false testimonials in order to justify their political propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Basically you’re obliquely admitting that you’re memory does not serve you well.

            See, I’m not trying to “get” you. I’m trying to help you see how crazy you are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for me compiling a list of all your so-called trolls and trying to arrive at a semi-accurate total, I’ll be doing it over the next day or two. I’ll also be collecting some of the juiciest of the lines you use for each of them. We’ll see how much repetition there is.”

            Getting obsessed are we?

            Did you you once freak out when Pete did something like that?

            So you’re going to cull from 29,904 comments that I’ve made. How exciting. I’m sure it will go over just as well as every other angle of attack you’ve tried.

          • Americana

            No, simply getting things prepped. It’ll be highly instructive to write “54 people have been labeled trolls by OFM, 46 of them have been told to seek medical and/or psychiatric help (it’s unclear how you differentiate between those),” etc., etc. When you make patently absurd claims like “only 5 trolls have been told to seek psychiatric/medical help”, it means that either you’ve got a HIGHLY SELECTIVE MEMORY or you ENJOY LYING, BIG TIME.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m talking about regular trolls like you. I don’t count the flybys.

            So like a typical leftist you want to use what you think are impressive numbers. How about you prove that this site is also part of the “system of oppression” and use some kind of data to support it?

            Carry on, kook. Don’t be surprised it it doesn’t work out as well as you expect it to. Of course you probably won’t notice that failure either.

          • Americana

            Oh, it’s not “an angle of attack”, rather it’s a blow-out disproving of the fact that you claim you’ve known “only 5 trolls have ever been told to seek psychological help” by you or anyone else on FPM. It’s a KNOWN TACTIC that’s universally employed by these sites. You’ve used it against hieronymous and somehow he curbed your enthusiasm for using it against him. You must think you stand a better chance against a woman despite the fact you’ve already committed multiple tactical faux pas and been coming up short.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Statistics aside, I truly think that you have mental health issues. You can’t defend your own state of mental health by complaining that I there are others that exhibit roughly similar behaviors. See, they might have problems too.

            I don’t recall saying Jerry has mental health issues. I believe I told him that I consider him to be myopic. That’s not necessarily mental health. And in context it means that I’m accusing him of refusing to see something being discussed.

            “It’s a KNOWN TACTIC that’s universally employed by these sites.”

            I see. Did you ever wonder if people with mental health issues might use the Internet to lash out in unhealthy ways? How is that suggestion harmful if it gets some unhealthy people to seek professional help? Are you a science denier or something?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…somehow he curbed your enthusiasm for using it against him.”

            Generally the rule is that when you stop acting crazy…

            Need help completing the sentence?

          • Americana

            Lunatics don’t generally find themselves having won two major knockouts in a hard-ass forum of wannabe bad boys who all play backup scrimmage scruncher for each other.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not sure that’s true. But what’s relevant here is that you’re extremely delusional.

            This doesn’t even make sense:

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “Lunatics don’t generally find themselves having won two major knockouts in a hard-ass forum of wannabe bad boys who all play backup scrimmage scruncher for each other.”

          • Americana

            Oh, it’s true and you know it’s true otherwise you wouldn’t attempt to dispute it because it’s such an egregious embarrassment (balance of sentence, DELETED). Delusional? About what? The two episodes don’t make sense to you? Sure, the two episodes make sense. Drakken had been awarded this omniscient intelligence position on FPM and god knows where else because he’s (per his claim) a military contractor in the Middle East. You must be shutting out your recollection of hieronymous dragging the truth out of Drakken over the issue of what would and wouldn’t be heard in the clear over a radio viz “Stand Down” orders in Benghazi. Do we really need to have hieronymous rehash that event to provide clarity for you?

            Soon afterward, Drakken must have forgotten how embarrassing it is to be caught in a lie because he claimed that he knew from personal contacts that the U.S. had failed to resupply Israel from the U.S. arms depot in Israel w/critical weapons. But this was merely Drakken repeating the talking points in an FPM article while ignoring all the hundreds of news articles and the military clarifications about the truth of the matter, which is that the U.S. would be requesting that Israel perform advance notifications of the armaments it intended to take from the arms depot instead of simply allowing Israel to take whatever it wanted. Separating fact from fiction rather than settling for such implausible lies is far more satisfying if you’re actually after the truth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Even if I stipulate that what you say is or might be accurate, what does that have to do with ANYTHING we’ve been discussing.

            I’m not looking for an answer. You should take that question up with yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If I’d ever seen you provide evidence rather than innuendo, I’m sure I’d remember it. ”

            You’re such a dumbass. People read in the media when my predictions come true. Not that I’m clairvoyant but I did make some (what I consider) obvious predictions this year that did come true.

          • Americana

            I’ve hardly ever read where you’ve made what I consider to be significant predictions that indicate you’re someone who’s got a talent for prescient insight. Inform us and give us a couple of relevant posts and their dates…e-Verify, in other words.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There is no reason for me to care what you think. Everything I wrote about the ACA and the IRS scandals is being revealed as true. Which is not to say that I’m clairvoyant because I’m not. But the predictions that I made were dead on.

            Actually my predictions for Benghazi have so far been dead on as well. I said it would take many years (well after 2017) before we would learn anything that we can count on as being truthful. Unless some well-connected whistle-blower is about to bring some compelling evidence out in the public space, we probably won’t learn much that we can count on.

            But you can’t actually follow the conversations. You just freak out when people are critical of the big state because you’re a communist dupe that thinks the state can fix everything “democratically” better than you can manage on your own. And asking you to tolerate and accept the realities of life is also too much to ask. According to you.

          • Americana

            Where did you say “weeks ago that (you’re) good for now on Benghazi”? I must have missed that post. My take-away from the very beginning of this go-round is that you claimed that this final House Committee report once again fails to have achieved what you believe should be feasible to do which is to attach significant tactical blame to the then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, to the State Dept., to the Armed Forces and to any other entity including the POTUS that stood in the way of getting aid to Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            I don’t ever recall even mentioning Clinton. My point all along is that “we” (the administration) mishandled Libya – after criticizing Bush like a bunch of banshees – and they do much worse. Now Libya and Iraq are infested with free range jihadis.

            The point was never that we should be able to control every aspect of our destiny. The point is that this president approaches EVERYTHING from a political slant and doesn’t care about effectiveness or competence. It’s just easier for him to spin after the fact.

            The problem all along is that you come in here and want to filibuster conversations and you’re not even able to understand what people have been saying. You just jump in when something hurts your feelings. You’re not careful at all. You’re an emotional wreck.

          • Doc2Go

            “free range jihadis” LOL
            I have got to remember to shamelessly use this phrase, in my posts. LMMFAO, Mate!

            -Doc

          • Americana

            (OFM) “I’m not satisfied and there is nothing you can do but throw up chaff and act like a gullible statist. And most communists in the West are gullible statists. So it’s all very predictable and boring. It is somewhat interesting to see how far you’ll carry this just to try to impugn people you hate for opposing your delusional Utopian fantasies about what a bigger state can do for you by reining in “capitalism” and continuously adding more goodies to your constitutional “health” provisioning expectations.”

            Talk about projection! You’re the one who’s constantly trying to impugn people w/name calling and labels and projections of your own illogical political fantasies. As for being gullible, you’ve never seen a conspiracy theory hatched that you didn’t endorse. As for “reining in capitalism,” how do you feel about the weakening of the Dodd-Frank bill on the trading of derivatives whose provisions were gutted in the latest budget bill that Congress passed? You’re OK w/the fact that CRONY CAPITALIST BANKERS will be able to trade in a big way the very same derivatives that nearly caused this generation’s Great Depression and that THOSE DERIVATIVES TRADES are being backed by the full credit of the entire U.S. Treasury? Boy, I’m sure not happy w/this. If Big Bankers want to trade derivatives, they can put their own capital on the line. That’s what Capitalism has always been — the Capitalist placing bets on his own foresight and intuitions and going it alone, whatever happens. Making derivatives trading bets and expecting to be bailed out by the U.S. government is CRONY CAPITALISM OF THE WORST KIND. What’s even more bizarre, we’d already supposedly decided not to allow this to happen again by passing the Dodd-Frank bill but, here we are, the crony capitalists are having their way w/the U.S. Treasury again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for being gullible, you’ve never seen a conspiracy theory hatched that you didn’t endorse. ”

            What an idiot you are.

            I attack idiots like you. That’s what I do.

  • Americana

    Oh, you’re not INTENTIONALLY “mocking (me)” because otherwise you wouldn’t keep inserting your foot in your own mouth. In fact, you have splatballed yourself in the family jewels so many times I sure hope you’ve got health insurance to get some neuticle replacements. My perspective is a little different, you’re wearing the target. But if you want people not to mock you, I’d suggest you stop making yourself such an enormously satisfying target and stop providing folks like me w/the written evidence to put on the target. If you were on target w/your commentary, then I’d have no quotes to pull from your posts.

    As for letting numskulls like you influence the conversation about how to manage diplomatic missions given our current circumstances, if your first defensive concept is that we’ve got to have the right to blow stuff up willy nilly wherever and whenever we choose then you’re not the man for the evaluation and strategy job. That might come to that in some instances but in Benghazi???? NO WAY would that have been the solution. The consular compound was already penetrated by the time the F-16s would have gotten there. Having our Ambassador die by friendly fire? Now that would be something we could be proud of!!!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You’re mocking me. Oh no.

      “NO WAY would that have been the solution. The consular compound was already penetrated by the time the F-16s would have gotten there. Having our Ambassador die by friendly fire? Now that would be something we could be proud of!!!”

      It turns out what you really meant is that you’re mocking yourself. Communists are hilarious until we tally the damage they cause.

      • Americana

        THAT was your OPPORTUNITY to rebut my post w/any sort of reasonable timeline of when the jets were notified and when they would have arrived vs when the consular compound was overrun and the jihadis could be fired upon without killing Americans by friendly fire. Mocking you? No, you make a mockery of this debate almost every time you type.

        I know a Vietnam vet who received a Silver Star for calling in an artillery strike on his forward base when they were nearly overrun. They were in OPEN COUNTRY w/their fortifications giving the pilots a CLEAR DEMARCATION for a fire zone. Yes, this guy saved the day w/his choice to call in an air strike. That is likely NOT what the result would have been in Benghazi.

  • Americana

    (OFM) “I don’t rely on any unconfirmed sources. People are here to share views. Not pass along proprietary or stolen information.”

    Oh, really? I don’t recall you chiming in when Drakken was outed as a propagandist shill brimming w/falsehoods that he attributed to his own personal experiences. As I recall, Drakken was pretty shocked when I picked up on his first claim about hearing the Benghazi “STAND DOWN” order in the clear over the radio and then he claimed to have personal knowledge of the failure of the U.S. to resupply Israel from its Israeli supply depot. Instead of which, neither of those stories of Drakkens’ were proven to be accurate. Yet you accepted them as gospel because Drakken fed into the whole psychodrama of those two events as they’re presented on this site. I’d say you’ve got a thing or two to learn about evaluating sources as well as evaluating information.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      >(OFM) “I don’t rely on any unconfirmed sources. People are here to share views. Not pass along proprietary or stolen information.”

      “Oh, really? I don’t recall you chiming in when Drakken was outed as a propagandist shill brimming w/falsehoods that he attributed to his own personal experiences.”

      Holy cow. You are so retarded. Let me say it again, I don’t rely on unconfirmed sources, and certainly not you! What you say about any other user here means nothing.

      “Yet you accepted them as gospel because Drakken fed into the whole psychodrama of those two events as they’re presented on this site.”

      You truly are insane. That’s one heckuva Ouija board you have going on. I guess you have a modern digital version, eh?

      “I’d say you’ve got a thing or two to learn about evaluating sources as well as evaluating information.”

      It doesn’t matter what you say. You have zero credibility.

      • Americana

        Oh, I’m not relying on my own credibility, that’s the BEAUTY of this whole Drakken business. I was pretty sure that it wasn’t possible to have heard the “Stand Down” order as Drakken claimed to have heard it. Remember, Drakken wouldn’t state his whereabouts when he heard the radio chatter — he just continued to claim it was “somewhere in the Middle East, somewhere nearby”. Doubtless, he didn’t want to state his precise whereabouts not for tactical reasons (as he implied) but because he knew that he’d been caught in a lie and that confirming his location when he heard the radio call would allow for even more extensive checking as to what would have been heard where. The same thing was true for Drakken’s claims about the U.S. failing to resupply Israel during their latest incursion. It simply wasn’t as Drakken stated. It’s not what I’ve said about other users here. It’s WHAT’S BEEN PROVEN ABOUT OTHER POSTERS HERE.

  • Americana

    OMG. He didn’t say word one about mischaracterizing your Benghazi focus. ‘Agreeing to disagree’ is the only polite way to say ‘I’ve had it for the moment’ but that’s not backing off in any way! The fact you EXPANDED the conversation to then include concerns about foreign policy viz the entire region is another entirely separate issue than Benghazi.

    It’s been my belief for quite a while that we’d have to reassess our diplomatic presence in the region and figure out an alternative format to what’s been the traditional Western diplomatic presence and process since the jihadis have never respected the diplomatic niceties.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “OMG. He didn’t say word one about mischaracterizing your Benghazi focus.”

      Idiot, he used the phrase “front and center.” F-off, you stupid moron!

      Nobody cares what moronic communist forum ping pong balls think. It’s the way of the world. Chalk it up to human condition. No Net Neutrality law can save you. It’s you.