Saturday, November 2, 2013


Written in 2003 by ONE person, Face Mash (Face Book’s predecessor), written by Mark Zuckerberg, was rolled out in February of 2004 (one year later-for you liberals). The first day it successfully attracted 450 students (from a population of a few thousand students – the only ones allowed on). By the time it became Face Book, it had cost $13 Million USD. That’s all. Just $13 Million dollars.

Three years and nine months after it became law, ObamaCare’s registration  website was rolled out with national, yea, even international fanfare. It cost at least $88 Million USD (the amount already paid to developer CGI – a Canadian firm) and some estimates run as high as $600 Million USD!

On its first day of operation, the ObamaCare web site managed to sign up 6 people from a population of 300,000,000 people. DID YOU GET THAT! 6 PEOPLE!!

By the second day, there were 100 enrollees and by October 3rd, there were 248. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Two hundred forty eight people enrolled. Not two hundred forty eight thousand or two hundred forty eight hundred, TWO HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT PEOPLE ENROLLED!

No wonder Kathleen Sibelius balked at revealing to Congress how many had signed up. It was NOT that she didn't know (although she said she would no know until mid-November). It was that she did not want anybody to know how colossal a failure its roll out had been. She admitted to its having had “problems,” but would not give the actual numbers.

Now documents have been obtained that show the actual numbers.

And it STILL doesn't work right.

But that’s OK. President BO (the amateur president) is now going to employ the “brightest and best” people from, of all places, Verizon (Can you hear me now?). Please explain why he spent between $88 Million and $600 Million on folks who were not the “brightest and best!”

I’ll bet you liberals will STILL defend it. I’ll bet you think this is normal for a new site.

(Warning: Do NOT read the history of the development of E-Bay, Amazon, Craig’s List, Angie’s List, YouTube or Linkdin. It will depress you).

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  HA! Now the ObamaCare website has been shut down for “extended maintenance!”  "Extended maintenance"...right (Psst: Try "rebuilding from the first line of code to the last".)

Well, not for months, just much longer than usual  The site will go offline this weekend from 9 p.m. Saturday until 9 a.m. Sunday. Just 12 hours. No, wait! Thirteen hours. We set our clocks back an hour tonight, remember?
What a bunch of fools you people are.


Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Stop. You are embarrassing yourself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


I'm reading your post and cringing at your lack knowledge about how applications are developed, how software is designed, how websites are deployed, how new systems are tested.


I've always respected you as an intelligent guy with sincerely held beliefs and good intentions.

But you have driven your Edsel off the cliff of ignorance with this one.

You have no clue.

Joe said...

XO: No, I won't stop. I do know what I'm talking about. You don't.

"I've always respected you as an intelligent guy with sincerely held beliefs and good intentions."

No, you haven't. That's just not true. Don't pull that guilt application on me. You're wrong and either too proud or too stupid to admit it.

Anonymous said...

Is there anything Republicans AREN'T against
Atheists, gays. liberals, blacks, Muslims. college professors, Hispanics, immigrants, hate filled, feminists, Arabs. gay marriage, and oh yes! HEALTH CARE! Is there that I missed?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The travesty is that it was a crony of Michelle Obama who was paid the millions to make the site, and now they have the contract to fix it! Um, if I pay you for a product that doesn't work, YOU will fix it without additional pay!

Ah, but they need those campaign donations.

Shaw, you are really telling some whoppers there. I'm not a Republican, but I am a conservative. When I have only two choices for voting, the socialist Demokrat party will never get my vote.

I am not against atheists, and have even had atheist friends over the years. I don't care if they believe in God or not. Now, if some atheists wants to take away my rights by claiming the Constitution says there is a separation of church and state (which it doesn't) then I will not be happy with them.

I am not against "gays" - I am against the homosexual agenda forcing me to sanction their behavior.

I am certainly not against blacks - I don't care about peoples' skin color because we are all members of the human race.

I AM against Muslims, because if they are practicing their religion they will be doing everything possible to subjugate the world - but liberals don't read history or current events, or even Muslim teachings, rather, they just listen to the deceivers and go about with PC nonsense as if everything is hunky dory as Islam takes over the world.

I'm only against college professors when, instead of teaching, they indoctrinate. I am not against Hispanics any more than blacks, whites, etc. I'm not again immigrants - unless they are here illegally. I'm not against feminist, nor Arabs. I AM against same-sex fake marriage as anyone with sanity would be, and I'm not against heath care for everyone - but I am against the obamanation of ACA which violates rights and is putting this country in such debt that it will never be paid.

You on the other hand are a typical leftists who wants the government nanny to control everything from cradle to grave as society comes to anarchy and destruction.

Joe said...

Shaw Keewee: What has that to do with anything in the post?

GEC: Liberals have warped minds and thus ascribe to everyone else their own characteristics.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I know it is off topic, but I asked it on another post and never got an answer so I thought I'd try again.

Glenn, you can answer too if you wish...

Am I correct to understand that you believe a candidate has a duty to vote the way his state, or district wants him to vote, regardless of whether or not he agrees with them, or the morality of the issue?

Joe said...

I actually did answer. But here is the essence once again.

The system where the elected one does what he likes is the parlimentary form of government.

We are supposed to be a democratic, representative republic, in which representatives discover what their constituents want and vote with them as best he can, so long as it is not illegal or immoral.

Dave Miller said...

Okay, so, who gets to decide what is immoral?

What do we use as the objective source of that morality in such a pluralistic society?

How do you explain, or defend either political party when they act against the will of a majority of the people in the US?

Joe said...

DM: "...who gets to decide what is immoral?"

If you need help, I'll help you.

"How do you explain, or defend either political party when they act against the will of a majority of the people in the US?"

They are mostly power hungry crooks.

I don't defend them. I am the first to accost them the best I know how.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I think gay marriage is a good example...

I might for example oppose it on moral grounds based on my religion...

But what if a majority of people, who do not share my religious viewpoint, do not oppose gay marriage.

Who then gets to adjudicate that?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Same sex-fake marriage doesn't need religious grounds. Marriage has a historical definition of being the union of opposite-sex people.

Biology 101 is also evidence against fake marriage.

Changing society for at the most 2% of the population is indeed insane.

If same-sex fake marriage is allowed (and it is in half the union now - albeit stupidly), then there is no logical reason to deny polygamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriages. These will be the next dominoes to fall, especially since the poly units are already clamoring for the "right" to marry all their partners.

Duckys here said...

Tough luck, Glenn. Denying gays access to the CIVIL contract of marriage is a violation of equal protection.

As much as rabid dominionists like yourself would like to have us governed by Leviticus, that's a no go.

Joe said...

DM: "Who then gets to adjudicate that?"

Not the feds, that's for sure.

Joe said...



Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - You really are clueless when it comes to IT issues.

First you have the ignorance to compare the roll out of the precursor of Facebook involving a few thousand

That's a stupid comparison. It's like comparing your neighbor kid's garage sale lemonade stand to Walmart.

You also ignore the degree to which Republicans and conservatives did everything they possibly could to sabotage the roll out.

In Kentucky, where the Democrat Governor embraced the program, accepted the federal funding to create a state run marketplace, the roll out was a huge success!

In other states, they were so intent on sabotaging the program that they made it illegal for the federally trained and licensed Navigators to assist anyone in enrolling.

As far as your GLEE over the website being shut down for maintenance you once again show your ignorance.

Websites and applications go offline all the time to perform maintenance, install upgrades and process batch uploads.

The fact that you don't seem to know this highlights the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to IT issues.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Stop embarrassing yourself.

Joe said...

XO: "...everything they possibly could to sabotage the roll out."

Yeah. There were all of those hacks, the insertion of viruses, the tons of adware, why, they even snuck in some false code...everything they could.

I work for a huge company that uses a complex computer system. They actually do shut down to do "routine maintenance." They do it twice per year.

The system we use is very stable, very dependable and does what it is supposed to do.

Just like the ObamaCare website.

Joe said...

XO: Are there any circumstances in which you would concede that the website was poorly designed, hard to use and very unintuitive, not to mention faulty long after it was supposed to be up and running? Any?

I thought not.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, the site was badly designed in for the states that opted out. Here in Nevada, after the first week, it is working very smoothly.

There are numerous issues though connecting a new system to the ancient system that the Feds are using for most of government. Even a great design still has to connect to a punch card system.

But you still never answered my question as to who gets to adjudicate. You just said, not the Feds. If not them, then who?

Glenn, your viewpoint is one that only works in a Christiam theocracy where everyone agrees with the ruling theology, something never seen in the history of Christendom...

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "XO: Are there any circumstances in which you would concede that the website was poorly designed, hard to use and very unintuitive, not to mention faulty long after it was supposed to be up and running? Any?"


The fact that users were required to create a validated profile before being allowed to browse plans and do "what if" price comparisons was just stupid.

Really bad design.

Once upon a time there was a financial institution that wanted to automate it's loan application process.

They gave their IT Department a copy of their loan application without any further guidance and gave them the blessing to "go forth and build".

The IT Department, following the logic of the process, built an application whose very first question to the customer, before name or address, or employment or social security number was "Have you ever declared bankruptcy?"

If the answer was "Yes" the platform denied their application and ended the process.

A really, REALLY bad design!

Now imagine a government that is forced by fiscal conservatives (like you) to avoid hiring "the best and the brightest" and instead be forced to accept the lowest bidder.

So you have the worst possible provider delivering a software platform whose requirements could never be finalized due to political bickering, and whose opponents would do everything they possibly could, including active sabotage to make sure it failed, for an application that had to immediately accommodate hundreds of millions of simultaneous users on Day One.

Gee. What could possibly go wrong?

But here is your worst nightmare and biggest fear...all of this will pass into distant memory and the Affordable Care Act will become a seamless part of American society.

All of this manufactured crisis and waving of hands will fade away like the rest of your nonsense.

You and Bonnie will be reaping the benefits of "Obamacare" while hypocritically complaining about how horribly unfair it is.

That's OK. I will still pay for your healthcare with a smile on my face.

I love my fellow citizens,

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Denying gays access to the CIVIL contract of marriage is a violation of equal protection.

Sorry, but redefining words and institutions is NOT a civil right.

I suppose you'd think it's a civil right to call a circle a square or a leg a tail.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Glenn, your viewpoint is one that only works in a Christiam theocracy where everyone agrees with the ruling theology, something never seen in the history of Christendom…

Oh, so my viewpoint that same-sex fake marriage is downright insane, only works for a Christian theocracy? I didn't even MENTION religion as the reason for not allowing such an oxymoron as "gay marriage."

Long before I gave a second thought to religion, it was obvious to me that same-sex behavior was bizarre and unnatural. Sort of like have sex with an animal. A Christian viewpoint isn't necessary to see that as wrong.

Craig said...

Joe, I know as much about IT as you, nothing. Here's what I do know. was a major cluster muck. It's getting better. According to the bill, it was supposed to be a portal to exchanges set up by the states. It was probably naive to think that states with Repub governors or legislators would cooperate. While Repubs haven't hacked the system they are guilty of sins of omission. They've done absolutely nothing to help it succeed and have tried to kill it for 3.5 years.

They haven't had 3.5 years to work on the website. Most of the 34 states that refused to set up a state exchange didn't declare until the bill worked it's way through the courts. A year and a half ago. Congress denied any additional funding to cover the states that fobbed the exchanges off on the feds.

The procurement process for tech contracts is a mess. Only the biggest co.s with teams of lawyers have the wherewithall to navigate the process rigged by co's with the wherewithall to lobby for a byzantine process that eliminates everyone but the large multi-nationals with wherewithall.

Dave's right about the complexity of setting up programs that must communicate with antiquated systems at IRS, INS and whatever other agency that's been starved of infrastructure dollars by the "deficit hawks".

The ACA is cumbersome, unwieldy and relies on the for-profit ins. industry but it's a far cry better than the status quo and I'd like to see it work. Dems had a lot of problems with Medicare D but once it became law they didn't try to kill it. They worked to make it better.

I would love to have single payer to cover basic health care. Private ins. would still exist for those who want to upgrade. Ins. to cover a private hospital room or a lift and tummy tuck. At the least, a public option where I could have bought into the awesome coverage you have with Medicare. As it is, we're stuck with the Republican individual mandate plan that Republicans have now discovered to be a Socialist plot to take over healthcare and kill your children and grandparents.

Craig said...

Despite the horrors of people who are losing their crappy coverage, there is another category of people the ACA will help that rarely gets talked about. I'm in that group.

My wife and I are self employed and had a private plan. My daughter had a chronic condition that was diagnosed about 6 years ago. Not life threatening but would have greatly effected her physical development. The treatments were expensive, an injection once a month. My premiums and deductibles skyrocketed. Eventually, they got what they wanted, we could no longer afford it and we were forced out.

I was lucky to find a part time job with full bennies. I won't say where but I deliver the world on time. For the last 3 years I leave the house @ 7:00 am.m., come home for an hour to eat and shower, then off to my part time job. I get home at 9:30 p.m. This has put a strain on our family but it's what I had to do.

I have gone on to MNSure, our state exchange that works beautifully, and found a comparable plan to what I have now through my employer and will be able to quit the part time job. I will pay more in premiums than my contribution at work but the deductible is the same. It's still way cheaper than I was paying for private ins. 4 years ago. I can put in a few more hours a week at my full time work and spend evenings at home with my family.

There are lots of people stuck in jobs they don't like because of health ins. They have a chance now to get out, start a business, whatever, without the high cost of COBRA. That's a good thing, Joe.

Craig said...

it was obvious to me that same-sex behavior was bizarre and unnatural.

Is it your contention that marriage is only about procreation and doing the deed?

BTW, homosexuality exists throughout the natural world. Do you think those famous penguins made a 'lifestyle choice'?

Duckys here said...

Joe, here we have another report of a very positive experience with the ACA. What say you, is it all bad?

I'm a bit on the fence over the loss of bare bones policies but if any of these people had been in situation even less chronic than Craig's they would have faced the identical problem and may or may not have found a solution.

So essentially they were uninsured and just feeding a few bucks to the for profit insurers. They're rolling the dice and a lot of them may not know it.

Trying to solve the problem of providing decent quality coverage for a diverse population means something has to give.
Some of us want to move along, refine the process and move toward a goal.
Others like yourself and Glenn are happy to call folks like myself a socialist (thank you, Glenn) and put your head in the sand.

Joe said...

DM: "Who then gets to adjudicate that?"

"...not the Feds. If not them, then who?"

Why, I never thought of that! Gee Whiz! If not them, the who?

Let me think. There's nobody left! Except the states, counties, cities and neighborhoods, none of whom are closer to the citizens or know how to adjudicate. As we know, they're all idiots and the feds are the brains of the country.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, why the sarcasm? These are legit issues that I think require serious consideration.

If we move these decisions to the states, how do we maintain a republic if we have 50 standards?

Joe said...

DM: My sarcasm was not general in nature, it was directed at you. The move away from more local control of governmental issues has been long, slow and sneaky, but it has happened.And it is absolutely the single most important issue we face as a nation.

The ONLY way to preserve the republic is to return to its original concept.

It is people who think like you who have moved us away from it to begin with. You have no idea how a country can exist without a strong centralized government...yet we did it for a long time before "progressives" got hold of it and started moving us away from it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marriage is first and foremost about companionship - that was the reason God said it wasn’t good for man to be alone. Procreation was the next thing, but the two really go hand in hand.

Even without procreation, the biological design of people is male to female and not male to male or female to female.

BTW, homosexuality exists throughout the natural world. Do you think those famous penguins made a 'lifestyle choice'?

I love it when people use the “natural” world to say something humans do must be okay because it is in the “natural” world.

Two issues here. The “natural” world, the world as God created it, was corrupted at the Fall. So what we see now may or may not be as intended.

Secondly, humans ascribe “homosexuality” to the animal kingdom by assuming the animal kingdom operates exactly like humans. Penguins are not “homosexual” - the don’t breed, don’t mate with, with same-sex penguins. But seeing creatures in the animal world behaving in a particular manner and calling homosexuality is self-serving to promote homosexual behavior in humans. A male dog will hump another male dog, or he will hump your leg - he’s only seeking to release his urges. No relationship is intended. Other male animals have been observed doing the same - releasing urges. Now, I think a lot of homosexual behavior could very well be just a release of sexual urges, as is some heterosexual urges.

So, since we observe eating of young in the animal kingdom, does that make it right and moral for mankind? Since we observe some creature eating their mates, does that make it right and moral for mankind? Is that what you think, that humans are just animals? Well, that is the evolutionist’s viewpoint, and what is taught to our children in school, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when a man walks into LAX and shoots a bunch of people because, after all, it is survival of the fittest, tooth and nail.

Craig said...

You're right, what separates us from other species is reason. You called homosexuality "unnatural". It exists in the natural world. Two male penguins who have no interest in mating with females and behave as mates, well, what would you call them. So, no, we don't do things just because we observe it in other species and it is natural.

We also have changing ideas in regards to normal. Normal is merely a numbers game. If a certain number of people are doing something, it can be, is not necessarily, considered normal. What's normal and what's natural are both bad arguments. It comes down to what's harmful. I can't see that homosexuality, in itself, is harmful. Same for gay marriage.

Your pleading God and the bible is irrelevant. Marriage is a contract granted by states. The constitution is silent on it. To deny gay marriage you must establish harm. It wasn't done. Same with polygamy, marrying a minor, a sibling or your pet. If enough people wanted to challenge those prohibitions, it could be adjudicated. I'm guessing harm could found in all. The slope isn't so slippery.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marriage is defined as the union of opposite-gender people. The institution of marriage has been that way since the beginning of marriage. You can't change the meaning of a word and the institution it defines just because 2% of the population whines that it isn't fair.

I could whine that a circle not being allowed to be a square is unfair.

Harm?!? Homosexual behavior itself is hazardous to health.

If this isn't enough "harm" for you, then you will be unable to find harm in any other union of people or people and animals, etc. "HARM" seems to be quite arbitrary and subjective when used by those who promote, support, and enable homosexuals.

Duckys here said...

The figures you sight indicate the risks of promiscuous behavior gay or straight.

Also, you seem to feel the institution of marriage has been static throughout history Glenn. Pure nonsense.

Study up

Duckys here said...

... typo, cite.

Before Joe and the grammar and spelling police show up.

Reminds me of the early scene in Jules and Jim when the anarchists run out of paint.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, are you that dumb that you think living in a monogamous committed marriage would lead to higher incidence of STD?

Glenn and Joe, hear the voices? Those are your corner men yelling, stay down.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Empirical evidence shows that a "stable, monogamous" homosexual relationship is very, very, very rare. Besides which, since the word monogamous means one wife, they can't have one anyway! You have either two "wives" with lesbians or two "husbands" with sodomites.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and ducky, except for a rare example of perversion, such as with Nero, "marriage" has always in every culture meant opposite sex people in a union. It may include one man and 25 women, but that is still opposite-sex people.

You liberals are just a bunch of homosexualists,- enabling perverts to force their perversion on the rest of the world. You people make me want to puke.

Next up, polygamy and polyandry, "marrying" goats, necrophiliacs marrying dead people, etc. You can't claim one is okay without logically admitting everything else is okay

Duckys here said...

You can't enter into a contract with a dead person, Chatsworth, so don't worry about the necrophilia.

You really are a peach.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Why should a contract matter. After all, marriage can be anything you want it to be.

Craig said...

since the word monogamous means one wife

The Greek mono meaning one or alone. Gamos meaning marriage. The etymology makes no reference to gender.

You liberals are just a bunch of homosexualists,- enabling perverts to force their perversion on the rest of the world. You people make me want to puke.

Seriously Glenn, you could have a future in writing homoerotica.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I stand corrected, monogyny is one wife.
Nevertheless, marriage will NEVER mean two of the same sex. That is nothing but an insane sanction of perversion.

Duckys here said...

Also, Glenn, you can't enter into a contract with a goat and polygamy is illegal (which homosexual marriage NEVER was).

So you do seem to be in hysterics for no good reason.

Can you come up with something better?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Same sex fake marriage was never legal or illegal because there is no such thing. No one would have conceived the idea because it is an oxymoron. How do you make it legal or illegal for a circle to want to be a square?

Just because something is illegal now, that doesn't mean it won't be made legal with enough advocacy. In many states homosexual behavior used to be illegal, which made the idea of fake marriage moot.

Abortion used to be illegal, slavery used to be legal. Legality doesn't define what is right or wrong - only what is legal. After all, in Nazi Germany it was legal to exterminate Jews, but I daresay you'd agree with me about that being wrong.

Why is a contract necessary for marriage? Ever hear of common law marriage? No contract involved, just live together. So anyone could live with their pet goat and have sex with it and then claim "marriage" and then demand it be sanctioned because same-sex unions are being sanctioned. After all, in Germany there are animal brothels for zoophiles to enjoy themselves.

And don't give me the canard about animals not being able to consent; no one seeks their consent to use them for entertainment such as rodeos, or take them as slaves and calling them pets, or eating them, or using their hide, or using them for experiments, etc.

Xavier Onassis said...

See, this is why I stick around on Jo Joe's blog.

Although I have grown to respect Joe as an honorable man with deeply held beliefs (who is absolutely DEAD WRONG on every single subject) it is his diminishing audience of sycophants that keep me coming back.

Glenn E. Chatfield is a raving, homophobic, xenophobic, paranoid LUNATIC!

This guy is clinically INSANE!

I can't believe he is allowed to wander around on his own and access the internet. He needs to be under 24/7 supervision.

Oh,and, need I remind folks, HE HAS GUNS!!! And he VOTES!

Glenn E. Chatfield is what is wrong with this country.

Him and ignorant people like him are dragging this country down and destroying it.

Joe said...

XO: If you can't be civil you won't be sticking around much longer.

My readership has remained steady and quite sufficient, thank you very much. My commenters are fewer, thanks to the like of you who don't know how to behave in public.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


It is “clinically insane” to call homosexual behavior as perversion, unnatural, harmful, etc
It is “homophobic” to tell the facts about homosexual behavior and not want society ruined by government sanction of it, and not wanting to be forced to sanction it or be punished.

I’d say it is heterophobic and Christophobic to behavior as you and your homosexualist buddies behave.

“Paranoid lunatic” for speaking the truth - ah, but the LEFT hates the truth because it exposes them for the deviant socialist that they are.

I don’t know how I attained the label “xenophobic” unless it’s because I don’t think those here illegally should be allowed to stay here instead getting back in line and waiting their turn. Of course the liberals need those illegals for the votes.

X.O. is the “raving lunatic” who is part of what is destroying this country. The left has turned this country over to illegals, the homosexualists and other rampant sexually immoral people, surrendering to the advance of Islam, spending us into the most debt in history, and spying on all our allies to make enemies of just about every nation in the world.
And his kind votes!