King/ Dictator Obama strikes again. Rewrites Obamacare

[Matt1970]

Speaking of other threads... http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2358020&page=2

"Please excuse me if I don't debate this further here, much as I don't debate the homeless guy who tells me Obama had a chip implanted into his head to steal his thought energy and give it to the Venusians living in Cuba."

So let's review: when unable to support something, possum will stomp his feet and refuse to listen, ignoring requests to support his opinions (as in both threads). He will also question/insult someone's mental standing over the nature of their argument, but later denounce the same behavior when it's applied to him.

Eskimo gave you some good advice, you should take it.

No, I think he is saying you guys make about as much sense as a homeless guy who tells you Obama had a chip implanted into his head, and I agree with him.

 

[fskimospy]

And wouldn't you know it, the definition of Direct: To manage or conduct the affairs of; regulate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/direct

Oh sweet Jesus. Did you not read anything else I wrote?

I am not trying to be condescending here, but do you know how to use a dictionary? I felt like we were making progress there.

This. Debating you is pointless. When you start actually being honest, maybe people can start taking you seriously.

If after all this you are still there with Werepossum trying to argue that regulation = nationalization you guys are simply too far gone or are too invested in your own personal pride to admit when you're wrong.

Seriously, this is a mistake even elementary school kids wouldn't make.

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking of other threads... http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2358020&page=2

"Please excuse me if I don't debate this further here, much as I don't debate the homeless guy who tells me Obama had a chip implanted into his head to steal his thought energy and give it to the Venusians living in Cuba."

So let's review: when unable to support something, possum will stomp his feet and refuse to listen, ignoring requests to support his opinions (as in both threads). He will also question/insult someone's mental standing over the nature of their argument, but later denounce the same behavior when it's applied to him.

Eskimo gave you some good advice there possum, you should take it. Or continue making yourself look like a hypocrite, whatever. Free country and all that.

The guy is just a little nutty and he lashes out when that very exacting world view of 'progressives = evil manipulators' is threatened. Anything that is a threat to this must be yet another one of their evil lies, hence you get posts like the previous ones.

Maybe it is too hot down there in TN.

 

[Matt1970]

Oh sweet Jesus. Did you not read anything else I wrote?

I am not trying to be condescending here, but do you know how to use a dictionary? I felt like we were making progress there.



If after all this you are still there with Werepossum trying to argue that regulation = nationalization you guys are simply too far gone or are too invested in your own personal pride to admit when you're wrong.

Seriously, this is a mistake even elementary school kids wouldn't make.

No, you are a dishonest hack unwilling to accept/admit the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you are a dishonest hack unwilling to accept/admit the truth.

Guy, you must sincerely not know how to use a dictionary. Just when I painstakingly walked you through how to read a dictionary for the definition of 'control', you made the same 3rd grade mistake with a word in THAT definition.

How did you graduate high school, much less anything else? I'm genuinely curious how someone this inept at such a basic research skill got through.

 

[Matt1970]

Guy, you must sincerely not know how to use a dictionary. Just when I painstakingly walked you through how to read a dictionary for the definition of 'control', you made the same 3rd grade mistake with a word in THAT definition.

How did you graduate high school, much less anything else? I'm genuinely curious how someone this inept at such a basic research skill got through.

This is why people won't debate you. It can't get much more cut and dry, black and white than this and you still refuse to accept it.

 

[fskimospy]

This is why people won't debate you. It can't get much more cut and dry, black and white than this and you still refuse to accept it.

Do you realize how many people have tried to tell you that you are incorrectly using the dictionary?

You're right. I actually cannot think of a single situation on this board where something has been so blindingly obvious. Even you admitted that the result your method returned meant something insane.

You've got to just be trolling me now because there's no way you can actually believe what you're typing.

 

[Matt1970]

Do you realize how many people have tried to tell you that you are incorrectly using the dictionary?

You're right. I actually cannot think of a single situation on this board where something has been so blindingly obvious. Even you admitted that the result your method returned meant something insane.

You've got to just be trolling me now because there's no way you can actually believe what you're typing.

You are a pathetic troll. You try and post a definition that says nationalization is government ownership and control, then after you find out the vast majority of the definitions say ownership or control, you try to say control doesn't mean regulate. Then when you find out control and regulate mean the same thing, you find the only alternate definition you can find to suit your needs, Direct. You now have to say it's not the direct they are referring to as a authoritative or dominating influence over, it is more like a "gentle type of action" "nudging something in a different direction" which are totally unsupported by the definition. I am supposed to take you seriously? LOL.


If you mean I don't know how to read a definition because I can see something and then make up my own definition for it like you just did, then no, I don't know how to read a definition.

 

[Matt1970]

You gotta love it. Obamacare gave the health industry a "gentle type of action" like "nudging something in a different direction" by writing the largest piece of legislation in history for it, but don't you dare call it Nationalization in any shape or form.

 

[fskimospy]

You are a pathetic troll. You try and post a definition that says nationalization is government ownership and control, then after you find out the vast majority of the definitions say ownership or control, you try to say control doesn't mean regulate. Then when you find out control and regulate mean the same thing, you find the only alternate definition you can find to suit your needs, Direct. You now have to say it's not the direct they are referring to as a authoritative or dominating influence over, it is more like a "gentle type of action" "nudging something in a different direction" which are totally unsupported by the definition. I am supposed to take you seriously? LOL.

This is literally insane. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. You are either doing a great job of trolling me or you are one of the stupidest people that has ever graced these forums. This is Texashiker territory.

Words have more than one meaning. Just because ONE meaning of 'control' means 'regulate' that does not mean that the version of 'control' being used in the definition of 'nationalization' means 'regulate'. A big clue that it doesn't mean that is because using it in that way leads to the illogical result that basically every business on planet earth is nationalized.

I have no idea how you have made it this far in life without understanding something so basic.

If you mean I don't know how to read a definition because I can see something and then make up my own definition for it like you just did, then no, I don't know how to read a definition.

You do not know how to read a definition. This is a simple, empirical fact at this point. You thought that because a single definition of 'control' meant 'regulate' that the words were always interchangeable. That shows conclusively that you don't know how to read a definition.

 

[Matt1970]

You win by determination alone, facts be damned. I just can't compete with the power of stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

You win by determination alone, facts be damned. I just can't compete with the power of stupid.

The facts are the facts and they are undeniable. How do you not know that just because words are synonyms in one definition that it doesn't mean they are always synonyms.

I am baffled. How do you not know this.

I guess you really do believe your argument, which is downright scary in its implications for America's educational system.

 

[Fern]

You are a pathetic troll. You try and post a definition that says nationalization is government ownership and control, then after you find out the vast majority of the definitions say ownership or control, you try to say control doesn't mean regulate. Then when you find out control and regulate mean the same thing, you find the only alternate definition you can find to suit your needs, Direct. You now have to say it's not the direct they are referring to as a authoritative or dominating influence over, it is more like a "gentle type of action" "nudging something in a different direction" which are totally unsupported by the definition. I am supposed to take you seriously? LOL.
-snip-

I think the reality of the situation is that one can pretty much achieve all aspects of nationalization with sufficient regulatory control. There are many paths to the same destination.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Are you people this stupid? How many times has this been communicated to you?

1.) This is an expansion of the hardship exemption, not a rewriting of the law. Hardship exemptions are determined by the HHS secretary, and this is totally within their legal authority to do. If you don't like that it's fine, but the idea that Obama is rewriting the law is... well.. false.

2.) The reason for not giving into the Republicans on the government shutdown was always one thing and one thing alone: you don't give in to hostage taking. It didn't matter if it was about the ACA, about taxes, about spending, about anything. Did you guys forget about how the Republicans tried to move away from the ACA and talk about spending cuts instead and that was ignored as well?

Repeat after me: the debt ceiling/government shutdown was about not giving in to hostage taking. Nothing else.

3.) This appears to affect approximately 500,000 people as of best estimates. Delay of the individual mandate? Hardly.

You guys really do fall for anything, don't you.

Didn't they give in to the "terrorists" the first go round?

 

[Darwin333]

You gotta love it. Obamacare gave the health industry a "gentle type of action" like "nudging something in a different direction" by writing the largest piece of legislation in history for it, but don't you dare call it Nationalization in any shape or form.

Lol. One of these days yall will realize that Obamacare was by and large written by and for the insurance companies. FFS the .gov will even subsidize losses (at least the biggest potential ones), if any, that occur due to obamacare. Wish my industry could get some legislation that forced everyone to purchase my produce yet if things go sideways they will cover my losses.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the reality of the situation is that one can pretty much achieve all aspects of nationalization with sufficient regulatory control. There are many paths to the same destination.

Fern

Interesting Cheney-esque turn of phrase with ample hedging, that's for sure. Regulation can achieve many of the effects you claim, other than ownership, which is the crux of the matter. In real life, Nationalization claims asset ownership by the nation. Regulation simply does not.

 

[monovillage]

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't they give in to the "terrorists" the first go round?

Yes they sure did. It was maybe the largest single mistake in obama's presidency as it set the stage for recurring fiscal instability for years to come. He was unwilling to risk the economy in the year before re-election, which only led to continuing risks to the economy thereafter. Bad move.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the reality of the situation is that one can pretty much achieve all aspects of nationalization with sufficient regulatory control. There are many paths to the same destination.

Fern

If you regulate something heavily enough you would certainly end up with de facto control over it and it could be considered nationalization.

Nothing like that has happened here though, and of course the idea that regulation at all = nationalization is beyond stupid.

 

[feralkid]

This is why people won't debate you. It can't get much more cut and dry, black and white than this and you still refuse to accept it.

The phrase you're looking for is "cut and dried".

If in doubt, consult the dictionary.

 

[fskimospy]

The phrase you're looking for is "cut and dried".

If in doubt, consult the dictionary.

lol, probably not a good idea for him. That's a challenging area.

 

[Matt1970]

The phrase you're looking for is "cut and dried".

If in doubt, consult the dictionary.

Thanks. cut-and-dried (ktn-drd) also cut-and-dry (-dr)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cut-and-dry

Eskimospy will be in shortly to tell me that doesn't mean what is says there and I an idiot for thinking it does.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks. cut-and-dried (ktn-drd) also cut-and-dry (-dr)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cut-and-dry

Eskimospy will be in shortly to tell me that doesn't mean what is says there and I an idiot for thinking it does.

lol. At this point it's just getting funny. You're the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect but in this case we're just talking about skills that small children have mastered.

 

[Matt1970]

Like I said....

 

[First]

What an absolutely sad portrayal of the follies of misplaced pride this thread has become. More depressing than entertaining now.