Jump to content

Captainant

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14659
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Captainant

  1. 2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Remove the Roe decision from the timeline, remove the abortion issue as a political tool at the national level, and I think that the timeline plays out quite differently, and further that the modern GOP looks meaningfully different.  

    Yeah if we had fewer sanctimonious religious extremists insisting on interjecting their sky daddy into doctor/patient medical decisions, it would no longer be a political issue. You should get to work on that, champ. 

  2. 1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

    Yes and no.

    Abortion worked / works bc it can be packaged so well.

    It’s the perfect wedge issue really.

    Well, that and evangelicals aren't known for their critical thinking skills. Just look at Annie, he's got to lie to defend his fabricated position that Roe was some galvanizing moment. There's some good write-ups that have good sourcing to explain the change over time:

    Quote

    Support for abortion

    Early on, many evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, saw opposition to legal abortion as a “Catholic issue.”

    A 1970 poll by the Baptist Sunday School board found that a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in a number of instances, including when the woman’s mental or physical health was at risk or in the case of rape or fetal deformity.

    The SBC passed its first resolution on abortion two years before the Roe decision. While the Convention never supported the right of a woman to have an abortion at her request for any reason, the resolution did acknowledge the need for legislation that would allow for some exceptions.

    In fact, many Southern Baptists saw the Roe decision as drawing a needed line between church and state on matters of morality and state regulation. A Baptist Press article just days after the decision called it an advancement of religious liberty, human equality and justice.

    The Convention affirmed this resolution in 1974 after Roe was decided. A 1976 resolution condemned abortion as “a means of birth control” but still insisted the decision ultimately remained between a woman and her doctor.

    A 1977 resolution clarified the Convention’s position, reaffirming its “strong opposition to abortion on demand.” However, it also reaffirmed the Convention’s views about the limited role of government and the right of pregnant women to medical services and counseling. This resolution was affirmed again in 1979.

    Fetus as a person

    Later that year, however, as an ultra-conservative faction within the denomination acquired power from more moderate leaders, things began to change.

    Starting in 1980, Convention resolutions took a hard turn against abortion access. A “Resolution on Abortion” declared “that abortion ends the life of a developing human being” and called for legal measures “prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.”

    Another interesting shift happened in that resolution. Instead of referring to “fetal life,” as did earlier resolutions, the 1980 resolution called fetuses “unborn” or “pre-born” human life or “persons.” This shift in language made a significant change to the status of the fetus. It was no longer a developing organism dependent on a woman’s body, but rather it was a full human being with the same status and human rights as the women. A 1984 resolution named a fetus “a living individual human being.”

    They were so upset, they passed and incorporated several resolutions clarifying their nuanced position in support of abortion. Until the 80s came along and they got co-opted by extremists that changed the script from a concern of government intrusion into a healthcare decision alllll the way to controlling women as if they were chattel. 

    Really strong stuff from annie, I'm sure he's convincing his peers sack and poe and other folks with an abusers mindset that it's all those damn women's fault for being such sluts

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    While this is clearly correct, I would like to say that it doesn't take much effort (or even intelligence) to be able to suss out the bullshit.  This approach works best with lazy people, which we have a fuck ton of.  Listen to NPR or watch network news and you'll get actual truth, or at least a lot closer to it.  It's the dipshits that live their lives on social media soundbites and obvious bullshit "news" like Fox that are the most susceptible to this tactic.

    Eh, it's worse than just the dipshits. I know a number of incredibly intelligent people that are only smart when they turn on their brains. When it comes to politics, they just turn off their brains and stop thinking about things because "it's all just so unpleasant with the lying". Sure, when you press them on a specific issue they're usually reasonable, but they'll happily and mindlessly repeat whatever the fox news talking point is - even though they'll swear up and down they NEVER watch fox

    My point being - people who fall for this are no longer willing to engage on facts as the first step in a discussion. They just assume ALL facts are bullshit because they were able to find an instance of #bothsides being wrong, and start to decide things based on "what people are saying".

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  4. 7 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    I still believe Dems could be creative and allow for everyone to purchase prescription meds from international online sources. That’s my critique of Dems. There are international providers that do that now. But, customs might snatch it. Or, is the online provider a good faith actor. I’d like the FDA to approve them before I inject the stuff in my body.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2181?r=31&s=1

    Damn those democrats for proposing legislatively what you're asking for!!! Damn them for failing to get republican votes!

    11 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    I don’t know if this would even require a change in legislation. 

    It would. Individuals are statutorily prohibited from importing, with some waiver-based exceptions

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/384

    12 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    You’re correct that I didn’t know the details of the bill. I don’t read legislation for a hobby, and I’m not an attorney. This community is full of attorneys. That’s why I posted questions. You’re just conditioned to see a question as a trolling effort.

    I'm not an attorney, I'm a tech bro. Use google. I searched for "US legislation international prescriptions" and the top two links are the ones I spent a minute reading and posting here for you. When "jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs" is a classic refrain from trolls, and when the questions you're posing take less than 5 minutes to look up for yourself.... Yeah you're gonna take some flak. Be better.

    I'm conditioned to see that sort of shit as a trolling effort, because when you're a brand new low post and rep poster coming in and framing a discussion completely incorrectly and counterfactually, nine times out of ten you're a sock puppet troll.

    • Like 1
  5. 26 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    I’ve taken a lot of vitriol in this thread. Js1 immediately labeled me a troll and has clung to that. Penelope gave my OP a “fuck you” then retracted it. Someone else called me a concern troll as well. All this for pointing out how the bill that passed doesn’t help many less-fortunate people.

    I called you a concern troll, because your post read exactly like a concern troll post of someone who's either completely not been paying attention - or someone who's trolling in bad faith. You're right the bill doesn't help many less-fortunate people - those provisions got stripped from the bill BY THE REPUBLICANS. And you led with blaming the democrats for that? Yeah. Kind of off kilter.

    26 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    Even though I recently joined surly, I’ve lurked for a long time and have a lot of respect for many posters. I’m a ledge guy. The reaction I’ve gotten for my critique of the bill leads me to believe us progressives also lack empathy as the examples of vulnerable people I’ve described have been disregarded in favor of a touchdown dance for the bill.

    You got heat because you had an uninformed and weak-ass take on the bill. Folks aren't 100% thrilled and happy with the bill, but they're glad something got passed to do make some progress. Your position is apparently that the dems only have so many shots to take, so since this wasn't perfect, they shouldn't have wasted the shot and sat on their hands passing nothing? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

    But it's not the dems limiting legislation. They're trying to get fucking something, anything, passed. You're goddamn right that we shouldn't be resting on our laurels - and the democrats aren't! There's narrow legislation to address insulin prices RIGHT NOW - are you going to blame the senate dems for only having 36 sponsors for the bill and blame them for not getting any GQP support? 

    It's not that we lack empathy, it's that you're being a pollyanna to think that the republicans would even want such legislation to advance.

    edit: like literally everything you're saying you want is in this bill. Blame the republicans for roadblocking it, not the dems for being forced to take a piecemeal approach.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  6. 9 minutes ago, Humble Beast said:

    The idea that we are overpopulated is nonsense. Now do you think the above advances are worth 1 degree Celsius of temperature rise over the last 100 years or whatever? I guess that’s up to the individual. 

    It's been more than 1 degree C over the last 100 years, we're closing in on 2.5 degrees. Which is generally agreed upon to cause a significant loss of biodiversity. 

    https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07/

    It's not up to the individual. They aren't contributing the majority of the temp increase. It's the private, for profit entities that are making money hand over fist ignoring the negative externalities of their industry. The costs are socialized, and the profits are privatized. Just as free market Jesus teaches us

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  7. 2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    Funny how this story doesn't end with him introducing new legislation to allow women in that position to get abortions.

    He probably prefers the anastasia route and just throws random factoids out to avoid talking about the issue itself, and then gets pissy when people don't shut up about it 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  8. 10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    I've got to ask...can you read? I mean, obviously you can type words, but is your reading comprehension at a second or maybe THIRD grade reading level? I never said this bill would reduce inflation. In fact, I never said anything. I reported what Summers allegedly said to Manchin. Do you need someone to explain to you the difference? What WAS said was that it would lower the national debt. Here is my original post below, just to make it easier on you, with the pertinent areas bolded:

    Poe is one of the MAGA chosen who exist purely to muddy the waters and prevent discussion. In most places we call that trolling, but on surly we excuse it because they've been posting on the board for so long and don't want to hurt and feefees.

    I'd stop engaging with someone who gets a kick out of being a contrarian thread derailer.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  9. 2 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    Yeah. I can see why you’re skeptical. I did set myself up with using “concern” several times in my OP.

    Let me be clear about my motivation. I fucking hate republicans. Their demonization of ACA and rebranding it is obamacare to demonize it was sickening.

    I campaigned for Beto for his senate run in 2018. I hosted a phone bank and worked several myself.
     

    I’m a type 1 and have been one for 35 years. Found out my freshman year of college. I was in the ICU for one week with pancreatitis and a regular hospital room for one additional week. I remember the nurse bringing me a syringe and an orange to practice injections. Sticking yourself with a needle the first time is a big hurdle when you’re 18. They wouldn’t release me from the hospital until I had started giving myself insulin injections. Simple math puts me at over 60,000 injections I’ve given myself. That’s a shit ton of insulin.


    When I turned diabetic, insulin cost $13 a bottle for a mobth’s supply. Minimum wage was $3.33. My insulin now for the two types are $50 and$300. 

    I hear you - but from the jump you're putting the blame on the democrats, who all voted to retain the insulin $35 price cap. 43 of the senate republicans voted against this cap.

    How is this the democrats fault?

    Should they have instead passed no legislation because they couldn't get 100%, which would definitely be worse in terms of GQP propaganda? Or should they take the wins they can, and continue to press legislation to get those gaps met?

    Quote

    The cap of $35 per month is great but I’m concerned about the 19 year old college student that may not have health insurance. Will that person who is barely scraping by fall through the cracks with this bill? I was that person 35 years ago.

    Hey man, insurance industry takers need to send their kids to exclusive private schools too! You can't expect them to go to public school!

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. lol it's funny to see shitheads get mad when they're called out for being shitheads.

    19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    I don’t run around this board making all kinds of LGTBQ slurs then emote about how fucking compassionate I am, unlike several of the hive mind leftists.  Fucking hypocrites.

    this is some high grade copium, advanced making shit up to attack people you disgree with and paint with a broad (and imaginary) brush. I'd love to see some examples since you're so on the ball with it

  11. 11 minutes ago, GenXer said:

    My critique of the Infrastructure Bill and its lack of lowering insulin cost in the political cartoon thread raised the ire of several people. I thought the discussion merited its own thread.

    My critique of the Democrats’ solution of capping the price centered around the lack of creative solutions to lower the cost. I offered a couple of suggestions which I won’t rehash here.

    In the other thread, one poster said the insulin cost problem will be addressed in another bill: Affordable Insulin Now act.

    The following is taken from the congressional website.

    This bill limits cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25% of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

    The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for a month's supply of covered insulin products at $35 beginning in 2023.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6833
     

    The above wording concerns me as it protects those of us with private health insurance through our employers and those covered under medicare. But does it also protect those with no health insurance? Does it protect those with an ACA marketplace health insurance plan? 
     

    Another concern I have about the bill is that it gives political ammunition for republicans.  Republicans and their foxnews propaganda machine demonized ACA for nearly a decade. It was very effective as a tool to mobilize low-information voters.

    I can already hear pharma earning calls blaming low insulin margins once the price cap eventually goes into effect albeit years from now. I can hear them complain that its affecting their ability to develop new drugs. 
     

    foxnews will demonize this bill and Dems will suffer politically with those same low-information voters.

    I’m distraught by the trap Dems have built for themselves and their lack of creativity with the bill. Introducing more insulin providers and competition in the space is a much better solution as it uses the republican argument against them.

    Eat a bag of dicks concern troll. It's not the dems fault that the republicans removed it from the bill and abused the filibuster rules to prevent its readdition.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-strip-35-insulin-price-cap-democrats-bill/story?id=88069589

    43 fucking GQP'ers vote against the measure, and this low information chud says "hOw CoUlD tHe DeMs MeSs ThIs Up???"

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  12. 2 hours ago, HouTex said:

    Subsidized?  Sweetheart contract?  Sounds like he locked in what ended up being a good deal.  It could have gone the other way if energy prices had moved differently.  Good for him for how it turned out.  

     

    2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

    Yall both are correct.  I lucked out on the contract when I signed it, and you can put my face on the Piper Perri meme when it runs out.  The not losing power is a tradeoff for not having a bunch of mature trees around me.  I don't think I'm close enough to anything to be one of the lucky ones that can't be shut off, but we did do really well during the freeze event.  

    100% good for him with how it turned out lol. But in a for-profit system, it's always a zero-sum game. If he's getting a great deal and burning 5 or 6 megawatts a month, then other people are going to be paying more while consuming less to make up for the lost profit margin. In a private, for profit system the shareholders (read: executives) are a more important priority than the customers served. It's why ERCOT and the TX grid operators haven't done dick to actually address any of the grids shortfalls - they've been putting off maintenance like crazy and paying the MASSIVE FINE of $500 for it lol. Who cares what happens when it freezes again? The MBA holders that made the call will already be on to the next business to ruin

    2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I mean, that's also another thing about our consumption: we consume a LOT of electricity.  11 years ago, we moved from an old 2k sf house to a newer (not super new, but newer and more efficient in both build and location into a canyon wall), and our electric bill/usage is functionally the same, even though we added a shitload more space.

    And yeah there's also the issue that US homebuilders have been building shitty houses for decades that cut every corner on insulation and sealing and efficiency to save a few bucks and get better margins. Once the house is built and finished, it's prohibitively expensive to retroactively put in better insulation, so we're just stuck with a glut of shitty tickytack houses that are horribly inefficient, which only exacerbates the problem. 

    Too bad any sort of regulation or rule for housing standards will get shot down in an instant. Ah well, nevertheless.

  13. 3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

    Not all conversations need to happen with our children.  The kids who were massacred in Sandy Hook were 6-7 years old.  That age is too young to discuss this sickness of the right and the impotence of the left to do something about it.   We absolutely should show the carnage of Parkland, Uvalde and others.  The right seems to revel in showing aborted fetus images they should see the aftermath of this.  

    But the young ones should not be having this crap in their heads.   Just as they shouldn't have 5.56 in their bodies. 

    Too late. If you didn't want that, we shouldn't have started doing school shooter drills as often as tornado and fire drills. Kids already have that shit in their heads from school and being taught how to survive a free fire situation.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Rage+1 1
  14. 22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Crenshaw is going to vote with the GOP a large percent of the time. But he also is taking the path of appearing more moderate when talking.  

    That's what we call an intellectually dishonest liar: when he says one things but does another.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 59 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    Yep. WFH, pool, and our new nifty surcharges had us at $400 in July.  Before pool and the freeze charge we were around $250 max.   Lady on next door went to something like $1300 last month when she expired and best rates were .20 or so.  That'll make a dent on some folks. 

    eta: 75 in day, 76 at night.  No other real major usages. 

    Pretty crazy that you've got an electricity rate that low, very fortunate for you to get subsidized by everyone else lol. For comparison, my monthly bill in my house (WFH but 5yo construction with good insulation and seals) with ~1300KWhr of usage in a month is about $275 after all the fun fees and surcharges. And there's not really any better rates available on the market either. 

    I understand why you're so blasé about the grid though lol. You've got a sweetheart contract and your electricity never goes out. Mine blinks out whenever the fucking wind blows too hard, I've had to buy UPS's for all of my electronics because of the nuisance of waiting 15 minutes for the whole network stack to reinitialize while I'm trying to work.

  16. 3 hours ago, Nivek said:

    I have mixed feeling about this.  I see the need to do this type of stunt, but I also loath bringing children into this.  

    It's not really "bringing them into this" - they're the fucking stakes at risk. It's being dishonest to not include them in the discussion.

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...