from a birth certificate to Ben Ghazzi to silly hysteria over a website

[Montrovant]

Considering what it is supposed to do (far more than sell a simple product/service) it is more of a public relations failure than an actual failure.

Engineers and web designers are usually full of shit, lying sacs of puss filled dis_ease

No, it's been an actual failure.

Even the president and the secretary of Health and Human Services have apologized for the problems with the website and said it does not work as it should. You can look at the reports from pretty much any media outlet, quotes from people who have tried to use the site, and my own personal experience has confirmed the site has been a failure so far.

I'm confident it will eventually get fixed. However, this has clearly been a failure so far.

Public relations failure. Not working as hoped and having issues does not equal failure. Because the media sells with anecdotal stories of frustration

Like I said before...

Get a life.

WTF are you blathering about?

So, any time a company puts out a product that does not work, it's a public relations issue?

If I had never seen or heard a single story about the website, my own experience with it would make it a failure, as in 15+ attempts I have yet to be able to finish the process. It's not a problem on my end. I'm computer-savvy enough to know that much.

Again, both the president and secretary in charge of the site have said it's rife with problems. How you turn that into a public relations issue, I'm not sure.

Maybe you are unable to accept that the website could be a failure now, but end up a success later. I'm not saying it's doomed to permanent failure, just that from the launch until now has failed.

Or maybe you are just blinded by partisanship. That seems much more likely.

Get a life? What does that even mean in context? And coming from the guy who said, "Engineers and web designers are usually full of shit, lying sacs of puss filled dis_ease" it holds very little weight.

Trying to pretend the problems with the website are public relations-oriented and not technical will do nothing to fix it.

 

[Dante]

No, it's been an actual failure.

Even the president and the secretary of Health and Human Services have apologized for the problems with the website and said it does not work as it should. You can look at the reports from pretty much any media outlet, quotes from people who have tried to use the site, and my own personal experience has confirmed the site has been a failure so far.

I'm confident it will eventually get fixed. However, this has clearly been a failure so far.

Public relations failure. Not working as hoped and having issues does not equal failure. Because the media sells with anecdotal stories of frustration

Like I said before...

Get a life.

WTF are you blathering about?

So, any time a company puts out a product that does not work, it's a public relations issue?

If I had never seen or heard a single story about the website, my own experience with it would make it a failure, as in 15+ attempts I have yet to be able to finish the process. It's not a problem on my end. I'm computer-savvy enough to know that much.

Again, both the president and secretary in charge of the site have said it's rife with problems. How you turn that into a public relations issue, I'm not sure.

Maybe you are unable to accept that the website could be a failure now, but end up a success later. I'm not saying it's doomed to permanent failure, just that from the launch until now has failed.

Or maybe you are just blinded by partisanship. That seems much more likely.

Get a life? What does that even mean in context? And coming from the guy who said, "Engineers and web designers are usually full of shit, lying sacs of puss filled dis_ease" it holds very little weight.

Trying to pretend the problems with the website are public relations-oriented and not technical will do nothing to fix it.

There you go again...

You people compare household budgets to government budgets and economies and now....

....now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product?

Keep using talking points. That strategy worked out well in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

 

[Montrovant]

Public relations failure. Not working as hoped and having issues does not equal failure. Because the media sells with anecdotal stories of frustration

Like I said before...

Get a life.

WTF are you blathering about?

So, any time a company puts out a product that does not work, it's a public relations issue?

If I had never seen or heard a single story about the website, my own experience with it would make it a failure, as in 15+ attempts I have yet to be able to finish the process. It's not a problem on my end. I'm computer-savvy enough to know that much.

Again, both the president and secretary in charge of the site have said it's rife with problems. How you turn that into a public relations issue, I'm not sure.

Maybe you are unable to accept that the website could be a failure now, but end up a success later. I'm not saying it's doomed to permanent failure, just that from the launch until now has failed.

Or maybe you are just blinded by partisanship. That seems much more likely.

Get a life? What does that even mean in context? And coming from the guy who said, "Engineers and web designers are usually full of shit, lying sacs of puss filled dis_ease" it holds very little weight.

Trying to pretend the problems with the website are public relations-oriented and not technical will do nothing to fix it.

There you go again...

You people compare household budgets to government budgets and economies and now....

....now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product?

Keep using talking points. That strategy worked out well in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

So yes, you are blinded by partisanship. Noted.

You people? What people are those, exactly? Who the hell do you think I am that you assume I compare household budgets to government budgets and economies?

Further, the comparison to a company's product is completely valid. You are the one who has stated this is a public relations issue, despite pretty much every government and media organization pointing out there are many technical issues. I was simply making an analogy to try and show you how silly that is.

Of course, perhaps you think there is some grand conspiracy to hide the public relations problems by covering them up with technical issues?

I imagine you think I am some kind of conservative, republican, tea party member, etc. I am none of those things, sadly for your prejudices.

What I am, on the other hand, is a person who has actually been attempting to use healthcare.gov and found it wanting. On multiple occasions. Using multiple browsers. On multiple computers.

What I am is someone who does not feel a need to try and sugar-coat the poor functionality of the website in order to, what, make the administration or the democrat party look infallible?

I don't care which party is in power. The government is rarely a bastion of efficiency, and this is simply a further example of that.

But please, continue to assume I fit within whatever silly box you have created in your mind for me, in order to insult something I've never done.

Nitwit.

 

[whitehall]

According to liberal logic the Benghazi coverup is somehow linked with the president's birth certificate. You never know.

 

[Dante]

WTF are you blathering about?

So, any time a company puts out a product that does not work, it's a public relations issue?

If I had never seen or heard a single story about the website, my own experience with it would make it a failure, as in 15+ attempts I have yet to be able to finish the process. It's not a problem on my end. I'm computer-savvy enough to know that much.

Again, both the president and secretary in charge of the site have said it's rife with problems. How you turn that into a public relations issue, I'm not sure.

Maybe you are unable to accept that the website could be a failure now, but end up a success later. I'm not saying it's doomed to permanent failure, just that from the launch until now has failed.

Or maybe you are just blinded by partisanship. That seems much more likely.

Get a life? What does that even mean in context? And coming from the guy who said, "Engineers and web designers are usually full of shit, lying sacs of puss filled dis_ease" it holds very little weight.

Trying to pretend the problems with the website are public relations-oriented and not technical will do nothing to fix it.

There you go again...

You people compare household budgets to government budgets and economies and now....

....now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product?

Keep using talking points. That strategy worked out well in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

So yes, you are blinded by partisanship. Noted.

You people? What people are those, exactly? Who the hell do you think I am that you assume I compare household budgets to government budgets and economies?

Further, the comparison to a company's product is completely valid. You are the one who has stated this is a public relations issue, despite pretty much every government and media organization pointing out there are many technical issues. I was simply making an analogy to try and show you how silly that is.

Of course, perhaps you think there is some grand conspiracy to hide the public relations problems by covering them up with technical issues?

I imagine you think I am some kind of conservative, republican, tea party member, etc. I am none of those things, sadly for your prejudices.

What I am, on the other hand, is a person who has actually been attempting to use healthcare.gov and found it wanting. On multiple occasions. Using multiple browsers. On multiple computers.

What I am is someone who does not feel a need to try and sugar-coat the poor functionality of the website in order to, what, make the administration or the democrat party look infallible?

I don't care which party is in power. The government is rarely a bastion of efficiency, and this is simply a further example of that.

But please, continue to assume I fit within whatever silly box you have created in your mind for me, in order to insult something I've never done.

Nitwit.

You people.

Methinks the girlyman/boy dost protest too much.

 

[Montrovant]

There you go again...

You people compare household budgets to government budgets and economies and now....

....now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product?

Keep using talking points. That strategy worked out well in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

So yes, you are blinded by partisanship. Noted.

You people? What people are those, exactly? Who the hell do you think I am that you assume I compare household budgets to government budgets and economies?

Further, the comparison to a company's product is completely valid. You are the one who has stated this is a public relations issue, despite pretty much every government and media organization pointing out there are many technical issues. I was simply making an analogy to try and show you how silly that is.

Of course, perhaps you think there is some grand conspiracy to hide the public relations problems by covering them up with technical issues?

I imagine you think I am some kind of conservative, republican, tea party member, etc. I am none of those things, sadly for your prejudices.

What I am, on the other hand, is a person who has actually been attempting to use healthcare.gov and found it wanting. On multiple occasions. Using multiple browsers. On multiple computers.

What I am is someone who does not feel a need to try and sugar-coat the poor functionality of the website in order to, what, make the administration or the democrat party look infallible?

I don't care which party is in power. The government is rarely a bastion of efficiency, and this is simply a further example of that.

But please, continue to assume I fit within whatever silly box you have created in your mind for me, in order to insult something I've never done.

Nitwit.

You people.

Methinks the girlyman/boy dost protest too much.

You can feel free to view my posting history and see for yourself.

Then again, you probably assume anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you consider the views of the democrat party is a fervent tea party supporter.

Care to skip the partisan political bs and discuss the website any more? Maybe explain how technical problems equate to a PR issue? Explain how people being unable to use the website because it has technical problems can be considered a success? Or perhaps you could explain why you think both the president and the secretary of health and human services have admitted the website is filled with technical problems if it's actually a PR issue? You could try explaining how my own inability to complete the process on the website due to it's issues is somehow PR related....

Or you can just continue with the childish, 'My side good! You people bad!'.

 

[Dante]

So yes, you are blinded by partisanship. Noted.

You people? What people are those, exactly? Who the hell do you think I am that you assume I compare household budgets to government budgets and economies?

Further, the comparison to a company's product is completely valid. You are the one who has stated this is a public relations issue, despite pretty much every government and media organization pointing out there are many technical issues. I was simply making an analogy to try and show you how silly that is.

Of course, perhaps you think there is some grand conspiracy to hide the public relations problems by covering them up with technical issues?

I imagine you think I am some kind of conservative, republican, tea party member, etc. I am none of those things, sadly for your prejudices.

What I am, on the other hand, is a person who has actually been attempting to use healthcare.gov and found it wanting. On multiple occasions. Using multiple browsers. On multiple computers.

What I am is someone who does not feel a need to try and sugar-coat the poor functionality of the website in order to, what, make the administration or the democrat party look infallible?

I don't care which party is in power. The government is rarely a bastion of efficiency, and this is simply a further example of that.

But please, continue to assume I fit within whatever silly box you have created in your mind for me, in order to insult something I've never done.

Nitwit.

You people.

Methinks the girlyman/boy dost protest too much.

You can feel free to view my posting history and see for yourself.

Then again, you probably assume anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you consider the views of the democrat party is a fervent tea party supporter.

Care to skip the partisan political bs and discuss the website any more? Maybe explain how technical problems equate to a PR issue? Explain how people being unable to use the website because it has technical problems can be considered a success? Or perhaps you could explain why you think both the president and the secretary of health and human services have admitted the website is filled with technical problems if it's actually a PR issue? You could try explaining how my own inability to complete the process on the website due to it's issues is somehow PR related....

Or you can just continue with the childish, 'My side good! You people bad!'.

In the real world, technical problems exist and always rear their head. How these problems are being handled are viewed from a PR perspective. Expecting smooth rollouts or even perfection is a sign of ignorance and immaturity. As an example look a rollouts of Microsift and Apple.

Now please, stop blowing smoke up my ass

 

[Montrovant]

You people.

Methinks the girlyman/boy dost protest too much.

You can feel free to view my posting history and see for yourself.

Then again, you probably assume anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you consider the views of the democrat party is a fervent tea party supporter.

Care to skip the partisan political bs and discuss the website any more? Maybe explain how technical problems equate to a PR issue? Explain how people being unable to use the website because it has technical problems can be considered a success? Or perhaps you could explain why you think both the president and the secretary of health and human services have admitted the website is filled with technical problems if it's actually a PR issue? You could try explaining how my own inability to complete the process on the website due to it's issues is somehow PR related....

Or you can just continue with the childish, 'My side good! You people bad!'.

In the real world, technical problems exist and always rear their head. How these problems are being handled are viewed from a PR perspective. Expecting smooth rollouts or even perfection is a sign of ignorance and immaturity. As an example look a rollouts of Microsift and Apple.

Now please, stop blowing smoke up my ass

Wait, did you just compare companies that sell products to the government rollout? You, who just recently said this, "now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product? ". Bit of hypocrisy there!

Additionally, there are no legal time obligations involved when Microsoft or Apple put out a new product. Can you say the same in regards to the ACA?

Maybe you could just bite the bullet and admit the healthcare.gov site was poorly designed and should have had more time/testing done before being opened. Or you could continue to deny all the evidence. Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose.

 

[Dante]

You can feel free to view my posting history and see for yourself.

Then again, you probably assume anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you consider the views of the democrat party is a fervent tea party supporter.

Care to skip the partisan political bs and discuss the website any more? Maybe explain how technical problems equate to a PR issue? Explain how people being unable to use the website because it has technical problems can be considered a success? Or perhaps you could explain why you think both the president and the secretary of health and human services have admitted the website is filled with technical problems if it's actually a PR issue? You could try explaining how my own inability to complete the process on the website due to it's issues is somehow PR related....

Or you can just continue with the childish, 'My side good! You people bad!'.

In the real world, technical problems exist and always rear their head. How these problems are being handled are viewed from a PR perspective. Expecting smooth rollouts or even perfection is a sign of ignorance and immaturity. As an example look a rollouts of Microsift and Apple.

Now please, stop blowing smoke up my ass

Wait, did you just compare companies that sell products to the government rollout? You, who just recently said this, "now you people compare the website rollout of this the PPACA/Obamacare to a company selling a product? ". Bit of hypocrisy there!

Additionally, there are no legal time obligations involved when Microsoft or Apple put out a new product. Can you say the same in regards to the ACA?

Maybe you could just bite the bullet and admit the healthcare.gov site was poorly designed and should have had more time/testing done before being opened. Or you could continue to deny all the evidence. Whatever makes you feel better, I suppose.

Nope.

What Dante did was comment upon the technology. The PPACA/Obamacare is much, much more than a website

Do try to keep up

 

[Dante]

The PPACA website is NOT selling a product.

 

[Montrovant]

So you're unwilling to admit either your own hypocrisy in comparing healthcare.gov to Microsoft and Apple, or the technical problems which have been part of the site and have been admitted to by those in charge?

And, apparently, you'll speak in the third person.

Got it!

 

[Dante]

So you're unwilling to admit either your own hypocrisy in comparing healthcare.gov to Microsoft and Apple, or the technical problems which have been part of the site and have been admitted to by those in charge?

And, apparently, you'll speak in the third person.

Got it!

Bob Dole told us that Bob Dole was tbe Republican nominee. How frigging cool was that?

Dante long ago spotted your inability to grasp the concept of 'distinctions with a difference' so the question is "has he been playing you?"

 

[Dante]

.from a birth certificate to Ben Ghazzi to silly hysteria over a website...how did tbe Republican Party get reduced to this? It can't be Obama alone or even Obama and Clinton before him.

Any ideas? Seriously...

Still wetting their pants over the website?


It's all they've got

 

[Moonglow]

.from a birth certificate to Ben Ghazzi to silly hysteria over a website...how did tbe Republican Party get reduced to this? It can't be Obama alone or even Obama and Clinton before him.

Any ideas? Seriously...

Still wetting their pants over the website?


It's all they've got

no, they have periodontitis

 

[Dante]

.from a birth certificate to Ben Ghazzi to silly hysteria over a website...how did tbe Republican Party get reduced to this? It can't be Obama alone or even Obama and Clinton before him.

Any ideas? Seriously...

Still wetting their pants over the website?


It's all they've got

no, they have periodontitis

The Three Ladies of Rightwing World: Diarrhea, Gonorrhea, and Pyorrhea

 

[Dante]

Was America better off before Obama?

I don't know. Try looking up headlines in 2007/2008.

bump


A website rollout?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.from a birth certificate to Ben Ghazzi to silly hysteria over a website...how did tbe Republican Party get reduced to this? It can't be Obama alone or even Obama and Clinton before him.

Any ideas? Seriously...

Diversionary tactics the Republicans have to keep fires going so the middle class doesn't figure out how they (Republicans) have screwed them.

Surely would be nice if they didn't have to take down the whole country with them.

I wonder what they're next phony scandal will be.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Come to think of it, I know what they're new one is -

the phony impeachment of the Attorney General.

Anything to waste the taxpayer's money and keep the spotlight off of their lying, cheating and stealing.

 

[PixieStix]

Posting a picture of a graph is suppose to somehow convince people?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Posting a picture of a graph is suppose to somehow convince people?

You're certainly free to post whatever you believe to be "convincing".

By all means - prove the numbers are wrong.