Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you


timschochet

Recommended Posts

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

You should switch to DirectvNow.  My bill went from $173 a month with DIRECTV to $35 a month with DirectvNow and I'm getting 98% of all the same channels I watched anyway.  

You still get the NFL package? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, Uruk-Hai said:

Tim, best music year of the 60s? Best 3 year run in the 60s?

I'm a late 60s, early 70s guy so it's going to be 69, and 67-69. But anything before 1965 isn't that good IMO, with few exceptions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I'm a late 60s, early 70s guy so it's going to be 69, and 67-69. But anything before 1965 isn't that good IMO, with few exceptions. 

I think the early 60s get dissed too much, but a lot of that is because Rolling Stone has had a huge impact on the way people think about rock history.

Anyway, I think 1965 - with the possible exception of '83 or '84 - was the banner year for the best records also being the most popular. My 3 year run would be '64-'66, just so I can catch the Beatles arriving and Motown hitting top-end speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uruk-Hai said:

I think the early 60s get dissed too much, but a lot of that is because Rolling Stone has had a huge impact on the way people think about rock history.

Anyway, I think 1965 - with the possible exception of '83 or '84 - was the banner year for the best records also being the most popular. My 3 year run would be '64-'66, just so I can catch the Beatles arriving and Motown hitting top-end speed.

For me 65 is top heavy but 69 has way more albums that I absolutely love. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

For me 65 is top heavy but 69 has way more albums that I absolutely love. 

That's cool. I was talking about individual songs but ,if we were going albums, my choice would be '75-'77

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK a few random political thoughts from the last month, in no particular order: 

1. Trump wisely made his 4 congressional promotions from very red seats and not swing districts, so it should be no surprise when all of the resulting special elections went Republican. I don't understand why the Dems spent so much money and time on Ossoff when he really didn't have much chance of winning. I bought into the hype myself, much like I do sometimes for championship fights which turn out to be duds. But I am a sucker; they should know better. 

2. I greatly admire Nancy Pelosi as one of the most effective Speakers that we've ever had. But she is NOT effective as an opponent to Trump, and neither is Chuck Schumer. Frankly they suck at it. The Dems desperately need new faces or they're never going to win anything. And no I'm not talking about more progressive faces, just young and fresh and more charismatic. I don't know who. 

More to come...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uruk-Hai said:

That's cool. I was talking about individual songs but ,if we were going albums, my choice would be '75-'77

70-72. But you said 60s. 

In terms of songs I don't know. I will consider that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3. I oppose the Republican healthcare bill for a variety of reasons, but a whole lot of the liberal rhetoric about it is unhelpful: the Republicans are trying to kill people, deliberately prevent poor people from getting healthcare, etc. Whom are you trying to convince with this? 

The worst aspect of populist politics, IMO, is the demonizing of one's opposition. Though Trump has been the most vocal recent proponent of this awful practice, Democrats certainly have their own long shameful history, and here it is again rearing its ugly head, particularly with Warren and Schumer, and imitated by some of the posters in this forum. I hate it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into critical darlings or older performers...

1967:  Sgt Pepper's, Magical Mystery, Velvet Underground & Nico, The Doors, Are You Experienced

1968:  The White Album, Astral Weeks, Electric Ladyland, Beggars Banquet, Folsom Prison

1969:  Abbey Road, Zep I & II, Let It Bleed, The Velvet Underground, Tommy

Interesting that 1969 is the only year with a big album from all of the Beatles, Stones, Who and Zeppelin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uruk-Hai said:

Explain "effective". 

Like Sam Rayburn and Tip O Neil, she was able to manage all the disparate opinions on her side of the aisle in order to get them to agree to compromise and pass difficult bills (like TARP and Obamacare.) if you think this is easy consider Boehner and our current Speaker, who can only get agreement when he gives in to the demands of the far right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Without getting into critical darlings or older performers...

1967:  Sgt Pepper's, Magical Mystery, Velvet Underground & Nico, The Doors, Are You Experienced

1968:  The White Album, Astral Weeks, Electric Ladyland, Beggars Banquet, Folsom Prison

1969:  Abbey Road, Zep I & II, Let It Bleed, The Velvet Underground, Tommy

Interesting that 1969 is the only year with a big album from all of the Beatles, Stones, Who and Zeppelin.

Other 1969 album favorites: 

The Band

Nashville Skyline

Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what you missed:

1. Someone had phonesex with a family member 

2.  The GOP fixed health care

3. We decided this woman is ugly

4.  Somebody kind of famous died 

5. Women still look great in yoga pants 

Link to post
Share on other sites

tim, you killed Batman.  In the future, please do not make alt accts based on beloved real people.  Thanks and welcome back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Here's what you missed:

1. Someone had phonesex with a family member 

2.  The GOP fixed health care

3. We decided this woman is ugly

4.  Somebody kind of famous died 

5. Women still look great in yoga pants 

1. I read that. Like an old Penthouse Forum letter! 

2. Sure the way that Clemenza fixed Paulie Gatto. 

3. I can't judge this as she looks exactly like my daughter's best friend. 

4. More than one I think. 

5. Good looking women look good in anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McGarnicle said:

Munny baited him, Tim said something that was perfectly accurate and justified, Munny responded with one of his grunt grunt you're an idiot posts, Tim got a long timeout and Munny got to keep polluting the board with his useless hateful 1-sentence ####posts, no punishment at all.

:lmao:

sure it was just like that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Russia thread DOA?  Twas a good little read even if discussion was low-ish.

 

See Wonder Woman?  Gal Gadot :wub:thoughts?...AND NO I'M NOT ASKING BECAUSE SHE IS ISRAELI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

3. I oppose the Republican healthcare bill for a variety of reasons, but a whole lot of the liberal rhetoric about it is unhelpful: the Republicans are trying to kill people, deliberately prevent poor people from getting healthcare, etc. Whom are you trying to convince with this? 

The worst aspect of populist politics, IMO, is the demonizing of one's opposition. Though Trump has been the most vocal recent proponent of this awful practice, Democrats certainly have their own long shameful history, and here it is again rearing its ugly head, particularly with Warren and Schumer, and imitated by some of the posters in this forum. I hate it. 

From what I'm hearing, the bill would screw a lot of people out of health care, which logically means some will die as a result. And the bill simultaneously lowers taxes for the wealthy.

Agree that it's not a great strategy to demonize the opposition but I don't know how you can discuss this bill honestly without framing them as evil or heartless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, McGarnicle said:

From what I'm hearing, the bill would screw a lot of people out of health care, which logically means some will die as a result. And the bill simultaneously lowers taxes for the wealthy.

Agree that it's not a great strategy to demonize the opposition but I don't know how you can discuss this bill honestly without framing them as evil or heartless. 

Yet the Democrats screwed a whole lot of people out of insurance with Obamacare.  Most of us are basically self insured with the extremely high deductibles, co-pays and premiums.  If you don't think that is NOT preventing people from going to the doctor when necessary - possibly making a health situation much worse or deadly - then you are an out of your mind partisan hack.

But, hey, as long as the left can proclaim someone technically HAS insurance (but really can't use it) then that's all that counts, amiright?

ETA:  I'm not really supportive of the GOP alternative either.  It seems neither side gives two ####### ####es about anyone as they both refuse to address the real problem - cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

ETA:  I'm not really supportive of the GOP alternative either.  It seems neither said gives two ####### ####es about anyone as they both refuse to address the real problem - cost.

:goodposting:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McGarnicle said:

From what I'm hearing, the bill would screw a lot of people out of health care, which logically means some will die as a result. And the bill simultaneously lowers taxes for the wealthy.

Agree that it's not a great strategy to demonize the opposition but I don't know how you can discuss this bill honestly without framing them as evil or heartless. 

The Republican philosophy is generally to move  control of these issues away from the federal government to state and local authorities as they believe that will be more cost efficient. That philosophy is one that I've come to disagree with in terms of health care, but it is neither evil nor heartless. And it's a trait of liberals to assume that if the federal government doesn't do something then it isn't done, and that line of thinking is unfair to conservatives IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The Republican philosophy is generally to move  control of these issues away from the federal government to state and local authorities as they believe that will be more cost efficient. That philosophy is one that I've come to disagree with in terms of health care, but it is neither evil nor heartless. And it's a trait of liberals to assume that if the federal government doesn't do something then it isn't done, and that line of thinking is unfair to conservatives IMO. 

Come to Texas.  Healthcare here is both evil and heartless.  Children pay the biggest price for those wonderful Republican policies.  Local (state) control of this stuff is discriminatory and just plain wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The Republican philosophy is generally to move  control of these issues away from the federal government to state and local authorities as they believe that will be more cost efficient. That philosophy is one that I've come to disagree with in terms of health care, but it is neither evil nor heartless. And it's a trait of liberals to assume that if the federal government doesn't do something then it isn't done, and that line of thinking is unfair to conservatives IMO. 

We as a nation pay more for health care and get less in return than most industrialized countries. They have single payer. I'm not a welfare state guy but there's no denying that most countries with single payer health care are doing a better job than us.

For republicans to try to push it off to the states, or just let the free market take care of it is disingenuous at best. If they genuinely believe that's the solution, okay, they're not evil, they're just stupid. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McGarnicle said:

We as a nation pay more for health care and get less in return than most industrialized countries. They have single payer. I'm not a welfare state guy but there's no denying that most countries with single payer health care are doing a better job than us.

For republicans to try to push it off to the states, or just let the free market take care of it is disingenuous at best. If they genuinely believe that's the solution, okay, they're not evil, they're just stupid. 

 

What countries have a single payer system that is considered great?  What makes their system great?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uwe Blab said:

Is the Russia thread DOA?  Twas a good little read even if discussion was low-ish.

 

See Wonder Woman?  Gal Gadot :wub:thoughts?...AND NO I'M NOT ASKING BECAUSE SHE IS ISRAELI.

 

1. I will return to it. It was very time consuming so I ask patience. But hopefully next week sometime. 

2. I liked WW but didn't love it. It's odd that so used to enjoy comics so much as a kid but I'm not too fond of the movies. I want more character development. Gadot is beautiful and amazing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ren Ho3k said:

Tim, what was the most excruciating thing you weren't able to comment on during your imposed silence?  

Welcome back guy 

Thanks Ren. 

I think it was the extended discussion about what the Democratic Party should do after losing the latest special election. It was a thoughtful debate (though I believe everybody is overreacting) and I wanted to take part, even though I'm not really a Democrat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Tim:
Chaplin or Keaton?

Astaire or Kelly?

Favorite Hitchcock film? 

1. Chaplin. There are no Keaton films to compare with Chaplin's masterpieces (City Lights, Gold Rush, Modern Times, The Great Dictator.) The General is a great film, though.

2. For me, Kelly, but some of this has to do with the superior technology from the 50s rather than the decades before. Astaire's best movies are from the early 30s (arguably) while Singin in the Rain, An American in Paris, etc., are from a more polished era.

3. Well I go back and forth on this. I love most of the famous ones. But Vertigo has a special place in my heart since I saw it in a movie theater (in San Francisco, where it was filmed.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

What countries have a single payer system that is considered great?  What makes their system great?

Hah!  Trick question!  There are no countries with a single payer system that is great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Hah!  Trick question!  There are no countries with a single payer system that is great.

Doesn't need to be great, just better than what we currently have been dealing with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, timschochet said:

Hey it's good to be back. I have a LOT of thoughts about politics and stuff over the last month or so. I'm sure I'll get to it. For now, hello to everybody here and feel free to ask me any questions. 

Good to see you kind sir. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Hah!  Trick question!  There are no countries with a single payer system that is great.

Hell they can change my question to what countries have a single payer system that is good.  What makes it good or what makes it better than our system?  Canada, for example, has long waits for certain procedures, do not cover other procedures that most americans current policies do cover, and does not give full free healthcare to immigrants.  How can we afford "free" healthcare from the government in the US and provide it to immigrants too?

I'm all for everyone having healthcare.  100%.  I'm also for choices and a market.  I have concerns about how we pay for it.  ACA not only raised taxes but also raised my premiums and out of pocket costs significantly with less coverage.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Hell they can change my question to what countries have a single payer system that is good.  What makes it good or what makes it better than our system?  Canada, for example, has long waits for certain procedures, do not cover other procedures that most americans current policies do cover, and does not give full free healthcare to immigrants.  How can we afford "free" healthcare from the government in the US and provide it to immigrants too?

I'm all for everyone having healthcare.  100%.  I'm also for choices and a market.  I have concerns about how we pay for it.  ACA not only raised taxes but also raised my premiums and out of pocket costs significantly with less coverage.  

I think you raise some good points. But the question is where we go from here. I don't believe what the Republicans are proposing is a positive step forward. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...