Letters to the Editor - Hawaii Editorials

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

Ever since the state of Hawaii outsourced its Medicaid services for the indigent population to WellCare and United Health Care , there has been nothing but chaos.
Comments
161 - 180 of 192 Comments Last updated Oct 8, 2009
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164
Oct 2, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who constantly harps on others about mixing fact and opinion. But it's apparently OK for you to do so. LOL.
Typical.
lol! Really? Claiming an opinion as being factual?

Show me where I've done this. Post number and explanation on what you're confused on. You have a childish habit of simply posting and saying "there it is" without clarifying.
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#165
Oct 2, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Mixing an opinion and claiming it as fact?
Please structure this sentence properly so that we're both clear about exactly what the issue is. "Mixing an opinion" with what?

My understanding of your long-running complaint is that people mix opinions with facts, and therefore intentionally/unintentionally misrepresent the opinions as being factual. Is that an accurate statement?

My own contention would be that the vast majority of arguments presented here consist of a mix of opinions and facts. Not necessarily because of an intent to deceive, but simply because that's often the general nature of debate. That's why two people may observe exactly the same thing, and agree that what they observed is "fact" - but may entirely disagree as to their interpretation/opinion of what happened.
Do you have an example? And I don't mean a shortened version with a clipping. Give me the post number and your complaint.
Will do, once you clarify.(But I'm stepping out right now - be back later.)
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Oct 2, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>Please structure this sentence properly so that we're both clear about exactly what the issue is. "Mixing an opinion" with what?
My understanding of your long-running complaint is that people mix opinions with facts, and therefore intentionally/unintentionally misrepresent the opinions as being factual. Is that an accurate statement?
My own contention would be that the vast majority of arguments presented here consist of a mix of opinions and facts. Not necessarily because of an intent to deceive, but simply because that's often the general nature of debate. That's why two people may observe exactly the same thing, and agree that what they observed is "fact" - but may entirely disagree as to their interpretation/opinion of what happened.
<quoted text>Will do, once you clarify.(But I'm stepping out right now - be back later.)
lol! Read what you quoted. Like I said, comprehension seems to be an issue for you... nix that, comprehension is an issue for you.

You may contend anything you want. That's your opinion. But trying to explain your way out before posting the issue is simply a way to set the conditions to match your position. It's what some people call "rigged."

As I said before, I let the facts speak for themselves. You on the other hand, feel the need to keep explaining your reasoning for them. And as far as I know, you appointed yourself to that position.

Pity.
alice

Hanalei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Oct 2, 2009
 

Judged:

6

6

6

The radio talk joks mix fantasy with ideology all the time.
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Oct 3, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Read what you quoted. Like I said, comprehension seems to be an issue for you... nix that, comprehension is an issue for you.
You may contend anything you want. That's your opinion. But trying to explain your way out before posting the issue is simply a way to set the conditions to match your position. It's what some people call "rigged."
As I said before, I let the facts speak for themselves. You on the other hand, feel the need to keep explaining your reasoning for them. And as far as I know, you appointed yourself to that position.
Pity.
It's critical that you learn to accept defeat more gracefully, Yeah. Especially given the fact that you are generally in over your head in these forums, and therefore, are likely to experience defeat more often than not. You should learn from your mistakes and move on.

Just some friendly advice. Have a great weekend!!

Since: Sep 08

Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Oct 3, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>It's critical that you learn to accept defeat more gracefully, Yeah. Especially given the fact that you are generally in over your head in these forums, and therefore, are likely to experience defeat more often than not. You should learn from your mistakes and move on.
Just some friendly advice. Have a great weekend!!
You haven't actually won anything, LD/DA. Are you under the illusion that there is a game to be won here?

If so, you are playing with yourself.

Oh, I suppose that's the case.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Oct 3, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>It's critical that you learn to accept defeat more gracefully, Yeah. Especially given the fact that you are generally in over your head in these forums, and therefore, are likely to experience defeat more often than not. You should learn from your mistakes and move on.
Just some friendly advice. Have a great weekend!!
lol! And still you can't back up your claim of mixing facts with opinion. Now why is that? Could it be you do more talking from what you "believe" that what is actually "true?"

What's even funnier is you're still convinced this a competition. So tell me, what what the goal? What was the objective? What is the definition of "winning" and "losing" in this competition you've developed in your head? Now a grown up would know this.

I guess when you lie on a consistent basis or truly think the world revolves around your opinion, it's easy to create a conclusion that runs counter to the real world everyone else lives in.

When you mentally grow up and mature, you may realize this. But my money is on you hitting your mental wall. But trust me, there's nothing wrong with that.
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Oct 3, 2009
 
Bullshot Crummond wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't actually won anything, LD/DA. Are you under the illusion that there is a game to be won here?
If so, you are playing with yourself.
Oh, I suppose that's the case.
<Gasp> You're absolutely right!! There are no games to be won here... we'll have to go to Rio de Janeiro to do that!!

Were you as stunned as those CNN anchors when the Olympic decision was announced? They were literally speechless... dumbfounded! There was an audible gasp. Surely the world realizes that Obama is The Chosen One??!! There must have been some mistake!! HE ordained that the games shalt beheld in Chicago, to honor himself and to reward his Chicago cronies with riches and graft.

This has to be just a bad dream for Liberals. They will awaken tomorrow, and all will be well with the world once more. Iran will dismantle its nuclear program, there will be free healthcare for all, and terrorists worldwide will beat their IEDs into plowshares.(Well, something like that, anyway.)
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Oct 3, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! And still you can't back up your claim of mixing facts with opinion. Now why is that? Could it be you do more talking from what you "believe" that what is actually "true?"
What's even funnier is you're still convinced this a competition. So tell me, what what the goal? What was the objective? What is the definition of "winning" and "losing" in this competition you've developed in your head? Now a grown up would know this.
I guess when you lie on a consistent basis or truly think the world revolves around your opinion, it's easy to create a conclusion that runs counter to the real world everyone else lives in.
When you mentally grow up and mature, you may realize this. But my money is on you hitting your mental wall. But trust me, there's nothing wrong with that.
If this is not a competition to you, then why do you go to such desperate lengths to "win"? Misrepresenting my positions (i.e., lying)... demanding proof after proof, well beyond reasonable doubt... feeling compelled to challenge each and every post...??

You vastly overestimate your own intellect, and are in no position to talk about anyone else hitting mental walls. You haven't even left the starting line, my mentally challenged friend.

You are like the Muammar Qaddafi of these forums.

Since: Sep 08

Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Oct 3, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text><Gasp> You're absolutely right!! There are no games to be won here... we'll have to go to Rio de Janeiro to do that!!
Were you as stunned as those CNN anchors when the Olympic decision was announced? They were literally speechless... dumbfounded! There was an audible gasp. Surely the world realizes that Obama is The Chosen One??!! There must have been some mistake!! HE ordained that the games shalt beheld in Chicago, to honor himself and to reward his Chicago cronies with riches and graft.
This has to be just a bad dream for Liberals. They will awaken tomorrow, and all will be well with the world once more. Iran will dismantle its nuclear program, there will be free healthcare for all, and terrorists worldwide will beat their IEDs into plowshares.(Well, something like that, anyway.)
Not a bad dream for me. I don't give a hoot about the Olympics--don't watch it, don't care. Just noise and confusion and drug tests.

But I'm glad you are happy we didn't get the prize. I think most Americans are proud that we were shut out by the world. Makes us all feel good. Thanks for being one of the guys rooting against the U.S.!

Must feel good to know that Iraq and Afghanistan are still one place where we're welcome!

Since: Sep 08

Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Oct 3, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>If this is not a competition to you, then why do you go to such desperate lengths to "win"? Misrepresenting my positions (i.e., lying)... demanding proof after proof, well beyond reasonable doubt... feeling compelled to challenge each and every post...??
You vastly overestimate your own intellect, and are in no position to talk about anyone else hitting mental walls. You haven't even left the starting line, my mentally challenged friend.
You are like the Muammar Qaddafi of these forums.
Yeah trying to win? No, Yeah is educating you.

Besides, aren't you the guy who quibbles over clear definitions and being specific? Why are you squirming away now?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#175
Oct 4, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>If this is not a competition to you, then why do you go to such desperate lengths to "win"? Misrepresenting my positions (i.e., lying)... demanding proof after proof, well beyond reasonable doubt... feeling compelled to challenge each and every post...??
You vastly overestimate your own intellect, and are in no position to talk about anyone else hitting mental walls. You haven't even left the starting line, my mentally challenged friend.
You are like the Muammar Qaddafi of these forums.
Lol! Easy. Thatís because you make statements claiming to be factual, yet canít back them up. Iíve misrepresented nothing. Itís not about winning or losing. Itís right or wrong.

What I find REALLY funny is your claim I keep ďÖdemanding proof after proof, well beyond reasonable doubt...Ē Like I told you before, you are CONFUSING the rule of law with the rule of science. And thatís precisely why you CANíT back up your claim about quantum science. Because youíre stumbling and bumbling in areas, trying to show off. Just like a kid And thatís why you CONSTANTLY need to explain your way out of issues. Because the facts donít support you. You just canít let YOUR facts stand up on their own because you KNOW they canít. Itís really that simple.

I donít think Iíve overestimated my own intellect. Iíve told you before Iíve made mistakes. Iíve even told you Iím not as smart as you in quantum physics as you boasted, but Iím willing to learn. But youíve provided nothing excuses. Youíre reason is simply youíre above me mentally. And yet, you havenít shown anything to prove that either. Just a lot of talk you want people to take at your word.

So I do believe youíve overestimated your abilities. As I said, when you grow up and mature, you may realize this. And I think the first step on this road is to get over your god complex. Maybe then you can start letting facts filter in.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Oct 4, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text><Gasp> You're absolutely right!! There are no games to be won here... we'll have to go to Rio de Janeiro to do that!!
Were you as stunned as those CNN anchors when the Olympic decision was announced? They were literally speechless... dumbfounded! There was an audible gasp. Surely the world realizes that Obama is The Chosen One??!! There must have been some mistake!! HE ordained that the games shalt beheld in Chicago, to honor himself and to reward his Chicago cronies with riches and graft.
This has to be just a bad dream for Liberals. They will awaken tomorrow, and all will be well with the world once more. Iran will dismantle its nuclear program, there will be free healthcare for all, and terrorists worldwide will beat their IEDs into plowshares.(Well, something like that, anyway.)
lol! Sounds like the Merrill/BoA
"merger." In that case money actually exchanged hands when a company failed under Bush's watch.

Gasp! Now that's a fact that truly cost US taxpayers money! Wow.
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Oct 4, 2009
 
Bullshot Crummond wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah trying to win? No, Yeah is educating you.
Besides, aren't you the guy who quibbles over clear definitions and being specific? Why are you squirming away now?
Honestly, Bull - it gets very old playing the following game (or variations of same):

-I make a statement "X."
-Yeah responds by saying that since (I) believe in "Y," prove it.
-I correct her by saying that I believe "X," not "Y."
-She responds the same way she did the first time; or, she says, "fine, since you believe in "Z," prove it.
-Etc., until I tire of denying the false positions that she creates for me - at which point she'll claim that I'm "evading" her, just as you're doing now.

When someone continues to twist your words, even after being repeatedly corrected - one way to try and avoid that situation is to clearly define the argument prior to responding. Just leaving her less wiggle room to distort or stray off on tangents, that's all. It's normally not necessary to go to those lengths when the other side is reasonable, logical, and secure in his/her knowledge. There's a common understanding that the two sides will "fight fair," and admit to it if they stray. None of that applies to Yeah... and increasingly, to you either. It's unfortunate, because there's a lot to be learned and gained from a good debate. But the two of you seem to believe in good "debase," not "debate."
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Oct 4, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Sounds like the Merrill/BoA
"merger." In that case money actually exchanged hands when a company failed under Bush's watch.
Gasp! Now that's a fact that truly cost US taxpayers money! Wow.
I'd suggest that however one may feel about the financial bailouts - and personally, as a "free market" proponent, I had (and continue to have) strong reservations about what went on - they apparently helped bring about the so-called "recovery" that Obama & Co. are now pointing to as evidence of *their* "successful" efforts.

I believe that this is a false "recovery," and that it'll be temporary and unsustainable. Obama and the Democrats will be in deep kimchee come 2010 & 2012, and frankly, I don't see fundamentals improving significantly by even the latter date. Do you?

About the only political "strategy" that I can think of would be for them to start a war. Not something that I'm personally espousing at all, but the alternative seems to be to just sit there and watch the economy crumble/stagnate, social unrest and discontent rise, and the nation become even more divided. Those conditions aren't very conducive to getting re-elected - which I believe is foremost in most politicians' minds, and which takes (their) precedence over doing what's best for their constituents.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Oct 4, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>Honestly, Bull - it gets very old playing the following game (or variations of same):
-I make a statement "X."
-Yeah responds by saying that since (I) believe in "Y," prove it.
-I correct her by saying that I believe "X," not "Y."
-She responds the same way she did the first time; or, she says, "fine, since you believe in "Z," prove it.
-Etc., until I tire of denying the false positions that she creates for me - at which point she'll claim that I'm "evading" her, just as you're doing now.
When someone continues to twist your words, even after being repeatedly corrected - one way to try and avoid that situation is to clearly define the argument prior to responding. Just leaving her less wiggle room to distort or stray off on tangents, that's all. It's normally not necessary to go to those lengths when the other side is reasonable, logical, and secure in his/her knowledge. There's a common understanding that the two sides will "fight fair," and admit to it if they stray. None of that applies to Yeah... and increasingly, to you either. It's unfortunate, because there's a lot to be learned and gained from a good debate. But the two of you seem to believe in good "debase," not "debate."
lol! Really? Show me. If you can. From my perspective you've taken as much wiggle room as you can't because you can't show anything in support of your statements.

Talking about an analogy isn't the same thing as showing something factual.

You have an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is Prof. Sting Theory. As I said, the easiest way to shut me down is prove your assertion is correct. Why instead, do you simply assert you're correct without proof?

I still believe it's a maturity issue and god complex that you have.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Oct 4, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>I'd suggest that however one may feel about the financial bailouts - and personally, as a "free market" proponent, I had (and continue to have) strong reservations about what went on - they apparently helped bring about the so-called "recovery" that Obama & Co. are now pointing to as evidence of *their* "successful" efforts.
I believe that this is a false "recovery," and that it'll be temporary and unsustainable. Obama and the Democrats will be in deep kimchee come 2010 & 2012, and frankly, I don't see fundamentals improving significantly by even the latter date. Do you?
About the only political "strategy" that I can think of would be for them to start a war. Not something that I'm personally espousing at all, but the alternative seems to be to just sit there and watch the economy crumble/stagnate, social unrest and discontent rise, and the nation become even more divided. Those conditions aren't very conducive to getting re-elected - which I believe is foremost in most politicians' minds, and which takes (their) precedence over doing what's best for their constituents.
What fundamentals are you referring to you're looking at for 2010 & 2012?
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Oct 4, 2009
 
Bullshot Crummond wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a bad dream for me. I don't give a hoot about the Olympics--don't watch it, don't care. Just noise and confusion and drug tests.
But I'm glad you are happy we didn't get the prize. I think most Americans are proud that we were shut out by the world. Makes us all feel good. Thanks for being one of the guys rooting against the U.S.!
Must feel good to know that Iraq and Afghanistan are still one place where we're welcome!
I wasn't happy that we didn't get the Olympics, nor was I rooting against us. I was embarrassed, because Obama's personal arrogance and buying into his own hype will be viewed as a reflection of our country as a whole. And the message that we received in return showed how the rest of the world feels about all that. They ain't buyin' it.

Obama is viewed as a nice, charismatic guy who is weak, inexperienced, ineffective and in above his head. The rest of the world stopped taking him seriously a while back. And can you really blame them? Here's a guy who goes around apologizing and appeasing to our friends and enemies alike, basically saying what a sorry nation we are -- and then comes back and tries to sell them on holding the Olympics here?? Because we're such a terrific place?? LOL. Maybe it's because he believes that all of the US sucks EXCEPT Chicago, and maybe a few other Lib enclaves.

He made a foolish political gamble when he should've been tending to more serious concerns at home... and lost. It's hard to find anything good to say about it... can't even say that at least we got "close."
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
Oct 4, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>What I find REALLY funny is your claim I keep ďÖdemanding proof after proof, well beyond reasonable doubt...Ē Like I told you before, you are CONFUSING the rule of law with the rule of science. And thatís precisely why you CANíT back up your claim about quantum science.
Confusing the "rule of law with the rule of science"? That's a new twist - yet another of your infamous ones.

From Wikipedia:
"The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law."

From theFreeDictionary.com :
"rule of law - a state of order in which events conform to the law"

So when/where did you contend that I was confusing the two? How does the "rule of law" pertain to our discussion? I'm not even sure what you mean when you say the "the rule of science" - do you mean its supremacy, along the lines of the first definition... or are you saying that there is a so-called "rule" that describes or defines "science"? Please define that.

Just as you seem totally confused about the differences between facts and opinions, you now appear to be confused about the basic concept behind the term "rule of law," ... as well as once again fabricating new positions for both of us. Feeling extra creative?

I gotta go out and enjoy the day... suggest you climb out of your dark little box and do the same, if you haven't already. Have a great day!
Liberal Delusions

Waimea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Oct 4, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>What fundamentals are you referring to you're looking at for 2010 & 2012?
Random thoughts:

"Official" unemployment to peak near 11% in 2010, and then remain around that level through 2011... dropping very slowly thereafter, but remaining high from a historical perspective for quite a while. I think Democrats really need to get it at least below 8% or so by 2010 from a political standpoint in order to even be semi-tolerable for voters.

Resultant low consumer demand means continued overcapacity/oversupply in almost everything. Without production, you don't get growth. So low growth - GDP maybe fluctuating between 1%- 2% through that period, and partially due to "misleading" statistical and other measures that aren't indicative or supportive of true, sustainable growth (e.g., government spending).

Many more bank failures - in the hundreds, through that period, as CRE and personal loans continue to go bad, and mortgage loans also continue to sour. Banks are unwilling to lend when they're worried about simply surviving.

Housing stabilizing from now through 2011, but remaining stagnant for quite a while. Huge inventory overhang fed by continued defaults/foreclosures, banks reluctant to extend credit. Many foreclosed homes are being kept off the market by the banks. As they are gradually released, they'll continue to be a drag on prices.

CRE next major shoe to drop. No consumer demand will translate into more stores and businesses going under. At the same time, personal loan defaults will rise as unemployment remains high.

Stocks are richly valued, with expectations for a "V"-shaped recovery already priced in. They can go somewhat higher short-term, but I believe the eventual reality of long-term, reduced earnings will weigh on the market. I expect a double-dip "W" recovery at best, but more likely, a long, drawn-out "L' with small ups and downs on the tail, similar to Japan's lost decades. When we do have bouts of price inflation, it will be in specific commodities, like oil, and driven more by supply constraints than demand.

Continued low interest rates for the next few years. Despite all of that printed money and resultant inflation fears - you can't force people to spend, and you can't force bank to lend. No velocity means no (overall) inflation (depending on how you choose to define it, of course). I think disinflation/borderline deflation for quite a while. No tragic deflationary spiral, but no Zimbabwe hyperinflation either.

Boomers had driven much of consumer spending. Now it's time to save, retrench - but not spend. They've lost much of their paper wealth, and now the "negative wealth" aspect comes into play.

Overall, social mood has shifted to frugality. A (forced, in part) return to simple, cheap, close-knit family and community values, recreation. On a macro level, this will be manifested by growing protectionism amongst nations.

Significant wildcards will be situations like Iran, a more serious swine flu pandemic, etc. I especially expect Iran to come to some kind of head within that timeframe, if not sooner. Who knows what that'll bring. Higher oil prices for sure. Nothing good to look forward to that I can see, other than perhaps the end result of a defanged Iran. But even that will bring other adverse repercussions.

I also fear that the proposed healthcare reform and cap-and-trade could have unintended, adverse effects on the economy, although they'd probably take a while to manifest - probably outside of the 2012 timeframe, depending on what and when.

What's your outlook, and what do you think Obama & Co. should do to get us out of this situation?

OK, gotta go, for real.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Kihei Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12) Aug 17 Musikologist 9
Review: Aloha Gold Buyers LLC Aug 14 Marcus Leighman 1
Hawaii governor seeks to prime budget pump (Dec '07) Aug 11 Yellow Cab Driver 13
How we saved a bundle on a car in Maui by renti... Jun '14 elmar winkler 1
Review: Vishnevska, Nina MD - Nina Vishnevska MD (Mar '10) Jun '14 cat 5
Rudeness May '14 Ron Brinkhurst 2
Lisa Otsuka alias Katie Huang.... (Dec '12) May '14 Hurt by Katherine... 3

Search the Kihei Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Kihei Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Kihei People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Kihei News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Kihei
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••