Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Mitts on fire!
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jan 9, 2012, 3:14 PM
Post #1 of 24 (1613 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Mitts on fire!
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.forbes.com/...ia-training/?view=pc


veganclimber


Jan 9, 2012, 3:43 PM
Post #2 of 24 (1608 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.


scrapedape


Jan 9, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #3 of 24 (1601 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [veganclimber] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
I like being able to fire people

This of course is the part you will hear in some PAC-funded commercial soon enough.


traddad


Jan 9, 2012, 6:22 PM
Post #4 of 24 (1585 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

If only. Weenies and marshmallows?


Allfred


Jan 10, 2012, 4:54 AM
Post #5 of 24 (1561 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 29, 2011
Posts: 421

Re: [traddad] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

It feels a little like the "I invented the interned" quote in the way that people are grabbing it and the way which it is distorted. Except I don't think this quote will have the legs that the internet one had.


dan2see


Jan 10, 2012, 9:47 AM
Post #6 of 24 (1539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

From my vantage point (safely OUT of the USA), your leadership race seems absolutely bizarre. I think I heard somewhere that it's a process where the party candidates can choose the best person to take on their leadership, based on what they tell the audience, in public.

You have candidates insulting each other, and frankly slandering their own buddies, and the buddies stand there and smile!

There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!

The other day I saw an analysis where the pundits tried to pick the "most trust-worthy" candidate. Mind you, this analysis was needed because they couldn't determine any other qualities, such as intelligence, social skills, organizational abilities -- so it boiled down to "who's wife trust them the most". Huh? Did I hear that correctly?

But in the meantime, the "news" media love to broadcast countless hours of this trash on every network and channel they can con. Man! I'll be glad when this process is over, and they can get back to more important events, such as the criminal trial circus, or maybe Miss Iowa Reality.


traddad


Jan 10, 2012, 10:15 AM
Post #7 of 24 (1525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [dan2see] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
From my vantage point (safely OUT of the USA),
You are a lucky man, sir
In reply to:
your leadership race seems absolutely bizarre.
Seems?
In reply to:
I think I heard somewhere that it's a process where the party candidates can choose the best person to take on their leadership, based on what they tell the audience, in public.
You know the old "best laid plans..."
In reply to:

You have candidates insulting each other, and frankly slandering their own buddies, and the buddies stand there and smile!
It's the American way....why do you hate America? Oh yeah...you're Canadian
In reply to:

There's no indication that any of these clowns
That's ASSCLOWNS to you
In reply to:
understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!
Making shit up; another American electoral tradition
In reply to:

The other day I saw an analysis where the pundits tried to pick the "most trust-worthy" candidate.
heh...he said trustworthy
In reply to:
Mind you, this analysis was needed because they couldn't determine any other qualities, such as intelligence, social skills, organizational abilities -- so it boiled down to "who's wife trust them the most". Huh? Did I hear that correctly?
No...it was "who's THIRD wife trusts them the most. Sheesh, the snowbillies get TeeVees and they think they know shit.
In reply to:

But in the meantime, the "news" media love to broadcast countless hours of this trash on every network and channel they can con.
Think of it as Reality TV...you know, like what we imported from the superior cultural icons in Great Britain
In reply to:
Man! I'll be glad when this process is over,
Wurd
In reply to:
and they can get back to more important events, such as the criminal trial circus, or maybe Miss Iowa Reality.
You mean Miss Iowa Corn Dildo, 2007?



dan2see


Jan 10, 2012, 10:48 AM
Post #8 of 24 (1517 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [traddad] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Laugh

Thanks, TradDad,

You have restored my faith in the American people!

Pirate


(This post was edited by dan2see on Jan 10, 2012, 10:52 AM)


curt


Jan 10, 2012, 6:37 PM
Post #9 of 24 (1482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [traddad] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

traddad wrote:
You mean Miss Iowa Corn Dildo, 2007?

Oh, come on--you know you'd do her. Cool

Curt


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jan 10, 2012, 6:46 PM
Post #10 of 24 (1477 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [curt] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
traddad wrote:
You mean Miss Iowa Corn Dildo, 2007?

Oh, come on--you know you'd do her. Cool

Curt

Oh yeah, you know he would




rmsusa


Jan 10, 2012, 7:40 PM
Post #11 of 24 (1470 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [dan2see] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!

If you haven't seen the evidence you haven't been listening, but why should you, your parties pick the candidates for you in a polite, canadian sort of way.

These people all have history and it's all been very publicly aired and torn apart from a million directions. You think that stump speeches and debate goof-ups are the only criterion, you're mistaken.


dan2see


Jan 10, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #12 of 24 (1459 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [rmsusa] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!

If you haven't seen the evidence you haven't been listening,

Well I did stop to listen to one of their "debates" from Iowa. I found the mud-slinging style very distracting, but I did want to glean some policy or theory from their comments. But my initial observation of "bizarre" out-weighed any hope of understanding how the American people might benefit from their dogma and doggy-do-do.

I couldn't believe that grown folks would display such idiocy in public! Together! I tried watching them again, on a later date. No improvement.

rmsusa wrote:
... but why should you, your parties pick the candidates for you in a polite, canadian sort of way.
Hey! You are using "ad hominem" at me!
Look it up Wikipedia: ad hominem
and then think of a better reason why I might comment on this circus which is broadcast on national TV.

In my riding, I sometimes volunteer to help my favorite candidate at election time. I have posted banners in my neighbourhood, knocked on doors, and joined the party.

But ... Frown ... I live in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's own riding. Shocked
That means I have the power to vote for him, or against him TongueCool !

rmsusa wrote:
...These people all have history and it's all been very publicly aired and torn apart from a million directions. You think that stump speeches and debate goof-ups are the only criterion, you're mistaken.

I don't get it.

Now, I think I should repeat my own quote:
dan2see wrote:
There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!


(This post was edited by dan2see on Jan 10, 2012, 8:44 PM)


guangzhou


Jan 11, 2012, 1:00 AM
Post #13 of 24 (1441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [dan2see] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Canadian politics aren't much better, nor are Canadian politicians.

I like to think that all Tv broadcast about politics are a bit like a bad sitcom, maybe the old "three's company," or Seinfeld.

30 minute shows with a lot of talk about nothing. Usually based on miscommunication and avoiding the incidents.

Much to do about nothing in Canadian politics.

In reply to:
Only two days into the campaign, PC Leader Tim Hudak’s blue bus broke down in Ottawa. His staffers, afraid journalists would use the incident as a metaphor for his election effort, parked the vehicle far down the suburban street where Hudak was slated to make a campaign announcement and brought in a replacement bus...

Hudak used the replacement bus for less than a day, until he got his wheels back.

PC campaign staff divulged this story to reporters after the election wrapped up Thursday night.

http://www.citytv.com/...us-on-campaign-trail


scrapedape


Jan 11, 2012, 7:05 AM
Post #14 of 24 (1422 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [dan2see] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!

If you haven't seen the evidence you haven't been listening,

Well I did stop to listen to one of their "debates" from Iowa. I found the mud-slinging style very distracting, but I did want to glean some policy or theory from their comments. But my initial observation of "bizarre" out-weighed any hope of understanding how the American people might benefit from their dogma and doggy-do-do.

I couldn't believe that grown folks would display such idiocy in public! Together! I tried watching them again, on a later date. No improvement.

rmsusa wrote:
... but why should you, your parties pick the candidates for you in a polite, canadian sort of way.
Hey! You are using "ad hominem" at me!
Look it up Wikipedia: ad hominem
and then think of a better reason why I might comment on this circus which is broadcast on national TV.

In my riding, I sometimes volunteer to help my favorite candidate at election time. I have posted banners in my neighbourhood, knocked on doors, and joined the party.

But ... Frown ... I live in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's own riding. Shocked
That means I have the power to vote for him, or against him TongueCool !

rmsusa wrote:
...These people all have history and it's all been very publicly aired and torn apart from a million directions. You think that stump speeches and debate goof-ups are the only criterion, you're mistaken.

I don't get it.

Now, I think I should repeat my own quote:
dan2see wrote:
There's no indication that any of these clowns understands economics, social issues, or foreign affairs -- they just spout stuff, and smile!

Say what you will about Harper. At least he understands economics.


dan2see


Jan 11, 2012, 9:04 AM
Post #15 of 24 (1413 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [scrapedape] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
... Say what you will about Harper. At least he understands economics.

I think Harper is too much like Bush. He's a reminder that our system is not a democracy, but an elected dictatorship.

Anyway we don't really need a dictator who understands economics. We need leadership to deal with our social issues and national policies.


traddad


Jan 11, 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #16 of 24 (1390 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Of course, when I originally saw the title of this thread I was hoping for...



SylviaSmile


Jan 11, 2012, 1:01 PM
Post #17 of 24 (1382 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [traddad] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

traddad wrote:
Of course, when I originally saw the title of this thread I was hoping for...
[image]http://d2scfd230u7pau.cloudfront.net/tkr/TFB/TKR-NBXY4MY555.jpg[/image]

Whenever I see the title of this thread, I can't help but think of oven mitts catching fire. Coincidentally, I heard that 2% of Americans believe that Mitt Romney's first name is "Mitten." I have no idea if that's true, but it still makes me smile!


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jan 11, 2012, 1:44 PM
Post #18 of 24 (1371 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [traddad] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

traddad wrote:
Of course, when I originally saw the title of this thread I was hoping for...

That person was burned by this person:



Partner j_ung


Jan 11, 2012, 2:06 PM
Post #19 of 24 (1366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [veganclimber] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.

I feel the exact opposite. I agree with the incentive to keep you healthy, but disagree with everything else.

That quote shows how out of touch he is with the very people who he thinks he can help. Mitt's never had to shop for his own insurance. Those of us who have understand implicitly that it's not buying a different coffee because you don't like the taste or finding a different house painter if your paint peels a year later. It's not as simple as "going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." Not even close.


veganclimber


Jan 11, 2012, 2:40 PM
Post #20 of 24 (1361 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [j_ung] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.

I feel the exact opposite. I agree with the incentive to keep you healthy, but disagree with everything else.

That quote shows how out of touch he is with the very people who he thinks he can help. Mitt's never had to shop for his own insurance. Those of us who have understand implicitly that it's not buying a different coffee because you don't like the taste or finding a different house painter if your paint peels a year later. It's not as simple as "going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." Not even close.

I think we are actually in agreement here, we're just talking about different things. This controversy came from his "I like to fire people" comment. I basically agree with that if we are talking about buying coffee or finding somebody to paint your house. I do not agree with Romney that this free market approach actually works for health care. Insurance companies don't have much of an incentive to keep you healthy. They try to predict in advance who is going to cost them the most, and simply refuse to cover them.


rmsusa


Jan 11, 2012, 2:50 PM
Post #21 of 24 (1359 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [dan2see] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The ad-hominem business was a remark directed at your motivation, not whatever your argument was. I suspect you're not as motivated to really dig into the histories of these people as one whose duty is to choose between them.

You maintained that "there's no indication ..... ". I countered that their histories and abilities are exposed for everyone to see and are analyzed a zillion ways from everywhere in the press. That remains true.

Having repeated your quote simply reinforce my (mis?) perception that you're looking for evidence of qualification only in stump speeches and "debate" utterances. Sorry if I failed to make myself understood. The remark about history and public airing was intended to say that there's plenty of evidence out there, whether or not it's obvious from stump speeches and "debates".

It would be truly bizarre to claim that Romney knew nothing about economics, that Gingrich knew nothing about social issues or Huntsman foreign affairs. The evidence is all out there, even if it doesn't surface well in public campaign utterances.


lena_chita
Moderator

Jan 12, 2012, 7:36 AM
Post #22 of 24 (1311 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5464

Re: [j_ung] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.

I feel the exact opposite. I agree with the incentive to keep you healthy, but disagree with everything else.

That quote shows how out of touch he is with the very people who he thinks he can help. Mitt's never had to shop for his own insurance. Those of us who have understand implicitly that it's not buying a different coffee because you don't like the taste or finding a different house painter if your paint peels a year later. It's not as simple as "going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." Not even close.


Yeah, or if he did, a few hundred $$ here and there were not a big deal to him.

It is very easy to have choices when you have money.

Then you can say, O.K., well, I am looking at all these policies, and this policy is a bit extra, but I like that it covers the doctor I've been going to for years, and doesn't have a mandatory primary physician referral policy for seeing specialists, and 20 PT visits a year are a big plus, so I'll choose this one. And I don't mind paying a little bit more for convenience and for keeping my favorite doctor.

What happens instead to people who actually deal with it in real life, instead of Mitt Rumney's imagination is that they have a choice of only 2-3 policies (maybe, if they are lucky), and all policies basicly suck because they are the cheapest ones, or they are all expensive and the only ones that their employer provides, or whatever, and the only "choice" is between being flailed starting from the right hand, or the left foot.


curt


Jan 12, 2012, 9:24 AM
Post #23 of 24 (1299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [lena_chita] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
j_ung wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.

I feel the exact opposite. I agree with the incentive to keep you healthy, but disagree with everything else.

That quote shows how out of touch he is with the very people who he thinks he can help. Mitt's never had to shop for his own insurance. Those of us who have understand implicitly that it's not buying a different coffee because you don't like the taste or finding a different house painter if your paint peels a year later. It's not as simple as "going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." Not even close.


Yeah, or if he did, a few hundred $$ here and there were not a big deal to him.

It is very easy to have choices when you have money.

Then you can say, O.K., well, I am looking at all these policies, and this policy is a bit extra, but I like that it covers the doctor I've been going to for years, and doesn't have a mandatory primary physician referral policy for seeing specialists, and 20 PT visits a year are a big plus, so I'll choose this one. And I don't mind paying a little bit more for convenience and for keeping my favorite doctor.

What happens instead to people who actually deal with it in real life, instead of Mitt Rumney's imagination is that they have a choice of only 2-3 policies (maybe, if they are lucky), and all policies basicly suck because they are the cheapest ones, or they are all expensive and the only ones that their employer provides, or whatever, and the only "choice" is between being flailed starting from the right hand, or the left foot.

Additionally, the concept of simply "firing" your insurance company and opting for a new one isn't that simple if you happen to have any pre-existing conditions, etc.

Curt


traddad


Jan 12, 2012, 9:48 AM
Post #24 of 24 (1294 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [curt] Mitts on fire! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
j_ung wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
In reply to:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

"You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

I don't agree with the part about insurance companies having an incentive to keep you healthy. Otherwise, I have no problem with what he said.

I feel the exact opposite. I agree with the incentive to keep you healthy, but disagree with everything else.

That quote shows how out of touch he is with the very people who he thinks he can help. Mitt's never had to shop for his own insurance. Those of us who have understand implicitly that it's not buying a different coffee because you don't like the taste or finding a different house painter if your paint peels a year later. It's not as simple as "going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." Not even close.


Yeah, or if he did, a few hundred $$ here and there were not a big deal to him.

It is very easy to have choices when you have money.

Then you can say, O.K., well, I am looking at all these policies, and this policy is a bit extra, but I like that it covers the doctor I've been going to for years, and doesn't have a mandatory primary physician referral policy for seeing specialists, and 20 PT visits a year are a big plus, so I'll choose this one. And I don't mind paying a little bit more for convenience and for keeping my favorite doctor.

What happens instead to people who actually deal with it in real life, instead of Mitt Rumney's imagination is that they have a choice of only 2-3 policies (maybe, if they are lucky), and all policies basicly suck because they are the cheapest ones, or they are all expensive and the only ones that their employer provides, or whatever, and the only "choice" is between being flailed starting from the right hand, or the left foot.

Additionally, the concept of simply "firing" your insurance company and opting for a new one isn't that simple if you happen to have any pre-existing conditions, etc.

Curt
It is if you're a rich vulture capitalist.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook