Houshphandzadeh wrote:same here, but you're not Monkeyboy, who is as partisan as jerseyhoya and hates Republicans. no offense, Monkeyboy

Werthless wrote:Health-Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles

Cliff notes: We need all of the young Obama supporters to purchase insurance at rates that subsidize old people's insurance. We should do this by reminding them it's an important part of Obama's legacy, it is their responsibility, and by buying ads for baseball broadcasts.

And, no, this is not satire.

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:Health-Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles

Cliff notes: We need all of the young Obama supporters to purchase insurance at rates that subsidize old people's insurance. We should do this by reminding them it's an important part of Obama's legacy, it is their responsibility, and by buying ads for baseball broadcasts.

And, no, this is not satire.

Additional thought. Maybe we can make the car insurance market more fair by not allowing the insurance companies to price by risk. Have safe drivers pay for the damages of the unsafe drivers through higher premiums. We're already forcing all drivers to have car insurance, so it's less of a change, and would require little new infrastructure. I don't see the downside.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:Health-Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles

Cliff notes: We need all of the young Obama supporters to purchase insurance at rates that subsidize old people's insurance. We should do this by reminding them it's an important part of Obama's legacy, it is their responsibility, and by buying ads for baseball broadcasts.

And, no, this is not satire.

Additional thought. Maybe we can make the car insurance market more fair by not allowing the insurance companies to price by risk. Have safe drivers pay for the damages of the unsafe drivers through higher premiums. We're already forcing all drivers to have car insurance, so it's less of a change, and would require little new infrastructure. I don't see the downside.

Actually, safe drivers already do subsidize the poor drivers. That's essentially how pooled risk works. Good drivers rarely (if ever) file first-party claims, so they never recover the amount paid into their liability premiums over the course of their lifetimes.

pacino wrote:'risk reduction' is to submit?

'risk reduction' is to truly go after the men. not this video game bullshit. it's rather endemic in our society at the honus being on the woman to not do this, not go here, not wear that. fuck that. it's on the men ENTIRELY.

hey guys, IS SHE SOBER?! oh boy, what education.

TenuredVulture wrote:The funniest thing about Pac's indignant attitude is it's much like the attitude of the people who advocate abstinence only sex education. "Teaching kids about condoms and birth control will encourage them to fornicate."

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:Health-Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles

Cliff notes: We need all of the young Obama supporters to purchase insurance at rates that subsidize old people's insurance. We should do this by reminding them it's an important part of Obama's legacy, it is their responsibility, and by buying ads for baseball broadcasts.

And, no, this is not satire.

Additional thought. Maybe we can make the car insurance market more fair by not allowing the insurance companies to price by risk. Have safe drivers pay for the damages of the unsafe drivers through higher premiums. We're already forcing all drivers to have car insurance, so it's less of a change, and would require little new infrastructure. I don't see the downside.

Actually, safe drivers already do subsidize the poor drivers. That's essentially how pooled risk works. Good drivers rarely (if ever) file first-party claims, so they never recover the amount paid into their liability premiums over the course of their lifetimes.

karn wrote:so i watched replay of most of the benghazi hearings today and from what i understand - having only somewhat followed the path of the story since the attack itself - is this:

1. the embassy in libya was woefully under spec and therefore vulnerable
2. the state department was aware that the embassy in libya was woefully under spec
3. able and willing military backup was available to aid the ambassador and staff during the attack but was not utilized
4. two separate orders to stand down were given during the attack
5. the day after the attack the president of libya categorized its perpetrators as islamists with terrorist ties
6. susan rice representing the state department went on sunday morning talk shows perpetuating a falsified story that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous demonstration to a youtube video and not necessarily terror linked
7. the crime scene was unsecured for 18 days before FBI arrived to begin investigation

what is the counter narrative to this? someone explain to me how we didn't leave 4 decorated americans to die at the hands of terrorists without offering any aid? or why there was the need to lie about it in the official state department version of what happened?

karn wrote:so i watched replay of most of the benghazi hearings today and from what i understand - having only somewhat followed the path of the story since the attack itself - is this:

1. the embassy in libya was woefully under spec and therefore vulnerable
2. the state department was aware that the embassy in libya was woefully under spec
3. able and willing military backup was available to aid the ambassador and staff during the attack but was not utilized
4. two separate orders to stand down were given during the attack
5. the day after the attack the president of libya categorized its perpetrators as islamists with terrorist ties
6. susan rice representing the state department went on sunday morning talk shows perpetuating a falsified story that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous demonstration to a youtube video and not necessarily terror linked
7. the crime scene was unsecured for 18 days before FBI arrived to begin investigation

what is the counter narrative to this? someone explain to me how we didn't leave 4 decorated americans to die at the hands of terrorists without offering any aid? or why there was the need to lie about it in the official state department version of what happened?

karn wrote:it kinda doesn't. why aren't clinton and obama getting the same brushback for similar negligence and lies? it shouldn't matter if it was 4 lives or thousands of lives that were lost. while the previous administration were more cavalier in their circumventing of the law to engage their agenda, this one seems to be as or more brash albeit in a more sinister and consumable way

karn wrote:n...the state dept treats this as a case closed situation based on the december report and brushes these new hearings off as partisan politicking when it's clear that LOTS more has come out since that report...

More interesting than that was the explanation—not denial—from outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. “We quickly responded, as [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” said Panetta.
“We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, [Africa Command] General [Carter F.] Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
That grim assessment has been buried under new Benghazi files and blown whistles. And if you break the Benghazi story into a few components, you can understand why. The outrage over the government’s post-attack talking points might be used to implicate Obama administration bureaucrats or political appointees in a pointless cover-up—and it doesn’t hurt that one of those appointees is named Hillary Clinton.
There’s disbelief at the low amount of security in Benghazi and Libya before the attack, and at requests for more aid and security—some from Ambassador Chris Stevens, before he was killed. But that doesn’t change the reality of Sept. 11 and Sept. 12, 2012. The Americans in Libya had to work with the tools on hand. That’s what makes the “stand down” question so ugly, even as it’s been altered. That October story about the CIA telling Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty to “stand down” and let terrorists attack the Benghazi compound has petered out, and didn’t appear in today’s hearing. The new “stand down” story, as told by Charles Woods, concerns that delay of a seven-man team that ended up arriving a little later, able to evacuate Americans but unable to join the younger Woods and Doherty at the front.
In his early interviews, and in his testimony, Hicks resisted several Republican attempts to get him to agree that a “stand down” order occurred. He never used those two words together. The closest he got today came when Ohio Rep. Mike Turner asked him whether he was telling the truth and DOD was lying.
“Turner: Just as early as last Monday, Maj. Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the account hasn’t changed. “There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody.” Now that’s a pretty broad statement, “anybody.” What’s your reaction to the quote by Mr. Firman?
I can only again repeat that Lt. Col. Gibson said he was not to proceed to board the airplane.
Turner: So your first-hand experience being on the site, standing next to Colonel Gibson, who was on his way on that C-130 transport and being told not to go, contradicts what Mr. Firman is saying on behalf of the Pentagon?
Hicks: Yes sir.”
But the “stand down” quote is the only bit of this contradicted by the Pentagon. Panetta made his comments in October 2012, when Benghazi was still roiling the election. On May 1, 2013, the Pentagon sent a timeline of its actions to the House Armed Services Committee. And according to that, Panetta had OK’d the movement of FAST platoons and a special operations force before 3 a.m. local time, but no aid arrived before the mortar attack that killed Woods and Doherty. According to Hicks, the team wanted to get to Benghazi as quickly as possible. According to Panetta, if it had, it wouldn’t have helped.
That’s why the “stand down” question burns. The people who ask it imagine what might have been had a seven-member team rushed to Benghazi and, maybe, some airpower had flown over the city. Panetta and his successors claim, without being too explicit, that none of this would have helped. The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.

The House will vote next week for a full repeal of #Obamacare.
— Eric Cantor (@EricCantor) May 8, 2013