Rely on Trusted Sources

[Boxlicker101]

I got a circular from the Department of Human Resources extolling the virtues of The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. It describes how much more wonderful Medicare will be, and how I will save money. I believe almost nothing of what it says.

I fail to see how Medicare will improve with the huge reduction in funding that is part of Obamacare. They say the reduction will be made up for by eliminating fraud and waste. As in all gov. programs, there is bound to be plenty of both, but I doubt that they will eliminate much. To me, the question arises: If you can crack down that much on fraud and waste, why haven't you already done it?

There is only one part of the circular that I believe. It says I should only rely on trusted sources on information. I agree completely with that, but none of those sources will be any US government agency.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Umm... There's already one thread about clueless old white guys. Isn't that enough?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Umm... There's already one thread about clueless old white guys. Isn't that enough?

What does that thread have to do with Medicare, which affects old people of all races and genders?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Umm... There's already one thread about clueless old white guys. Isn't that enough?

There will never be enough threads about or for clueless old white guys. They fill the world with their cluelessness.

 

[sr71plt]

What does that thread have to do with Medicare, which affects old people of all races and genders?

It's rather ironic that you missed the point.

 

[cloudy]

Honestly, Box...everyone knows that you don't trust any source but Faux News, and that you hate everything about Obama. We've heard it from you ad nauseum.

Did you have to start another god damned thread to tell us yet again?

 

[TE999]

I got a circular from the Department of Human Resources extolling the virtues of The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. It describes how much more wonderful Medicare will be, and how I will save money. I believe almost nothing of what it says.

I fail to see how Medicare will improve with the huge reduction in funding that is part of Obamacare. They say the reduction will be made up for by eliminating fraud and waste. As in all gov. programs, there is bound to be plenty of both, but I doubt that they will eliminate much. To me, the question arises: If you can crack down that much on fraud and waste, why haven't you already done it?

There is only one part of the circular that I believe. It says I should only rely on trusted sources on information. I agree completely with that, but none of those sources will be any US government agency.

Doggone it, box. You've awakened the Obamabots again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Doggone it, box. You've awakened the Obamabots again.

yeah, Box. Shut up for a while, let us have a few moments without your whining.

 

[Liar]

There is only one part of the circular that I believe. It says I should only rely on trusted sources on information. I agree completely with that, but none of those sources will be any US government agency.

So, name a trusted source of information. One that you trust, I mean.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, name a trusted source of information. One that you trust, I mean.

AP, UPI, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox, and pretty much any actual news item, print or broadcast or over the internet, when they limit themselves to facts and omit the opinions. I hope you don't actually trust the gov. to tell the truth. I doubt if anybody else here does.

This is not particularly about Obamacare; it's more about distrust of the gov.

Pilot, you missed the irony of the gov. telling us to rely on trusted sources when they are probably the least trusted, except for political blogs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

AP, UPI, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox, and pretty much any actual news item, print or broadcast or over the internet, when they limit themselves to facts and omit the opinions. I hope you don't actually trust the gov. to tell the truth. I doubt if anybody else here does.

This is not particularly about Obamacare; it's more about distrust of the gov.

Pilot, you missed the irony of the gov. telling us to rely on trusted sources when they are probably the least trusted, except for political blogs.

When Fox trumpets something that UPI, API, Reuters and CSM tell you are flat out lies, do you still trust them?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
AP, UPI, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox, and pretty much any actual news item, print or broadcast or over the internet, when they limit themselves to facts and omit the opinions. I hope you don't actually trust the gov. to tell the truth. I doubt if anybody else here does.

This is not particularly about Obamacare; it's more about distrust of the gov.

Pilot, you missed the irony of the gov. telling us to rely on trusted sources when they are probably the least trusted, except for political blogs.

When Fox trumpets something that UPI, API, Reuters and CSM tell you are flat out lies, do you still trust them?

No. Fox has their agenda, as the other networks do, but I believe they are more honest than the others. I believe they report news the other networks avoid reporting if it makes liberalism look bad.

ETA: Can you tell me an example of an outright lie? I don't mean accidentally referring to a person of one party as being of another and then correcting the error. I mean a deliberate lie.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No. Fox has their agenda, as the other networks do, but I believe they are more honest than the others. I believe they report news the other networks avoid reporting if it makes liberalism look bad.

Is there a news agency you rely on to report the new that fox won't because it makes conservativism look bad?

ETA: Can you tell me an example of an outright lie? I don't mean accidentally referring to a person of one party as being of another and then correcting the error. I mean a deliberate lie.

Well, I could link you to watchdog sites that point out those lies but you have previously dismissed them as being untrustworthy.

 

[TE999]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
AP, UPI, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox, and pretty much any actual news item, print or broadcast or over the internet, when they limit themselves to facts and omit the opinions. I hope you don't actually trust the gov. to tell the truth. I doubt if anybody else here does.

This is not particularly about Obamacare; it's more about distrust of the gov.

Pilot, you missed the irony of the gov. telling us to rely on trusted sources when they are probably the least trusted, except for political blogs.




No. Fox has their agenda, as the other networks do, but I believe they are more honest than the others. I believe they report news the other networks avoid reporting if it makes liberalism look bad.

ETA: Can you tell me an example of an outright lie? I don't mean accidentally referring to a person of one party as being of another and then correcting the error. I mean a deliberate lie.

Speaking of, this bunch around here represents the nadir of so-called 'Liberalisim'...it's more like 'Socialisim'... like what Obeyme's administration is practicing..."You have too much so I'm going to give this poor soul over here some of what you have 'cause that's 'fair' ps. remember me on election day"...what a steaming pile of horse dung! Slackers unite, you have nothing to lose but your government handouts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Speaking of, this bunch around here represents the nadir of so-called 'Liberalisim'...it's more like 'Socialisim'... like what Obeyme's administration is practicing..."You have too much so I'm going to give this poor soul over here some of what you have 'cause that's 'fair' ps. remember me on election day"...what a steaming pile of horse dung! Slackers unite, you have nothing to lose but your government handouts.

wow what sexy talk, TE. I totally understand why you hang out here on the porn writer's forum, the eroticism positively vomits forth from your keyboard.

 

[Liar]

No. Fox has their agenda, as the other networks do, but I believe they are more honest than the others.

Based on what? That they tout a perspective you agree with? I can see how one can mistake that for trustworthyness.

I believe they report news the other networks avoid reporting if it makes liberalism look bad.

That doesn't make them more or less trustworthy. Just biased in your favor.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, I could link you to watchdog sites that point out those lies but you have previously dismissed them as being untrustworthy.

Okay, give me a link. Remember, though, I am referring to a news item, not an opinion.

 

[Liar]

I'd like to repeat my original question, but a bit more specific:

If you would want to know what the Health Care Reform thingy as passed does and what effects it will probably have, where would you turn to? Is there any source to answers on that that isn't partisan one way or the other?

A news bureau or news network mainly reports what happens at the moment, not stuff like that. If they do, they're merely reporting what someone else thinks and says.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You don't get to specify 'news not opinions,' when you are talking about the opinions that fox news promulgates.

http://www.newshounds.us/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/glenn-beck-attacks-presid_n_593587.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

 

[TE999]

wow what sexy talk, TE. I totally understand why you hang out here on the porn writer's forum, the eroticism positively vomits forth from your keyboard.

That's a baffling and yet interesting take on what I said, but relatively incomprehensible...is there a secret code in there someplace? Regardless, you really need to brush up on your sarcasm.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a baffling and yet interesting take on what I said, but relatively incomprehensible...is there a secret code in there someplace? Regardless, you really need to brush up on your sarcasm.

hmm. I guess it went over your head.

I am sorry. Truly sorry.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'd like to repeat my original question, but a bit more specific:

If you would want to know what the Health Care Reform thingy as passed does and what effects it will probably have, where would you turn to? Is there any source to answers on that that isn't partisan one way or the other?

A news bureau or news network mainly reports what happens at the moment, not stuff like that. If they do, they're merely reporting what someone else thinks and says.

You're probably right about something like Obamacare. Anything said about it is speculation, including what was said on the circular I mentioned in the first post. In a case like this, I prefer to get info and develop an opinion from that. Since there is a huge reduction in funding for Medicare, I can't help thinking the services being offered will decrease.

 

[TE999]

hmm. I guess it went over your head.

I am sorry. Truly sorry.

Ummm...well...you know how us old, senile white men are...slow on the uptake when you young scamps begin using all those slang words...of course we are very busy evicting widows and orphans, plotting the disenfranchisement of people of color, hoarding all the money, denying everyone medical care, drilling for oil, mining coal, polluting the environment, destroying the ozone layer, exploiting the workers, undermining the UN and making sure everyone is cheated out of their fair share.

The best thing is you can't do anything about it except piss and moan. HAHAHAHA!

 

[Huckleman2000]

You're probably right about something like Obamacare. Anything said about it is speculation, including what was said on the circular I mentioned in the first post. In a case like this, I prefer to get info and develop an opinion from that. Since there is a huge reduction in funding for Medicare, I can't help thinking the services being offered will decrease.

The reduction in funding is due to elimination of overpayments to private insurance companies offering something called Medicare Advantage. Essentially, it's cutting out the middleman (i.e. private insurance companies). Pretty simple, actually. Here's a link to a .pdf that outlines the changes. Of course, it's from the government, so you won't believe it, but that's what they did. *shrug*

 

[Huckleman2000]

It's rather ironic that you missed the point.

hmm. I guess it went over your head.

I am sorry. Truly sorry.

I suppose this raises sort of a moral issue: is it still funny to insult those who don't understand the insults? Or is it just cruel?