He should form a select group to plug these leaks, have them answer only to the Oval office, should be called plumbers, and also to be on the safe side, they should meet at least once a month in the Watergate Hotel
I'm not sure that the Watergate Hotel has any wet rooms available though!
And yet, Roe V Wade should be the SCOTUS decision everyone in the internet age should be happy to have. The next four years are totally the time to kill the right to privacy forever because feth consequences anyone who disagrees with glorious leader is just fake news or someone who should shut up anyway.
And we're supposed to believe that elements of the Russian Secret Service acted without Putin's knowledge.
That's simply called plausible deniability. If the one thing he will know about is not leaving a paper trail. Just like he doesn't know there were/are Russian military personnel in Ukraine.
It's also called not that uncommon. Do I need to trot out all the NSA and CIA scandals where US intelligence agencies were doing something without telling anyone they were doing it? How about that time Mossad released classified information just to embarrass Israel's Prime Minister? The thing about Clandestine Intelligence is that by definition they do things without telling anyone. In some countries they're practically their own underground governments. The KGB was one such agency, and it's not that far fetched that the FSB and other Russian intelligence agencies are likewise such.
They really do like making bills that will be laughed out of court, don't they.
Looks like it's a vehicle to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As I said, something that will be laughed out of court. They;ll need to put 2-3 super right-wing judges int he supreme court in place of liberal.moderate ones to even have a chance. It's just a waste of money. And considering that Indiana currently is $46,377,635,000 in debt according to ballotopedia, it's not exactly the best thing to be wasting money on.
Indiana's budget surplus comes at a cost to Medicaid, preschool programs, and a public health epidemic due to drug overdoses and infections from sharing needles.
But hey, taxes are down. But that's what you get when you don't understand the true costs of tax cuts and spending cuts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Wouldn't that whole "Life begins at conception" thing have serious consequences for IVF treatment?
I can imagine it does. There's probably two issues - firstly that if they fertilise more than they need then they have to treat them all as viable and secondly there is a significant failure rate so some 'living humans' are implanted with the knowledge that some or all will fail (and hence could be argued that they aren't protecting the human life).
Also, that whole "Asserts a compelling state interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins" would basically require the state to ensure that every citizen of the state is looked after.
So, providing healthcare, housing, food, work etc. Everything that humans require to survive is now a compelling state interest, and yet I'd feel safe betting money they wouldn't follow through on that side of it. Oh and don't forget abolishing the Death Penalty as the state has a compelling interest in protecting human physical life.
Even if Cohen did travel to Prague from Italy, by bus, car, train, plane, whatever, there would be a trail of some sorts.
CCTV images, having to stop at a petrol station for fuel, passport control at the airport etc etc
and having 'travelled' to Prague, he meets with high ranking Russian agents in a third country in possibly full exposure to the CIA/NSA.MI6 or whoever...
I'm not buying this for a nano-second.
And what's the end game, that's the ultimate question.
Putin had planned for years to blackmail Trump into running for President? wtf x 1000
It's like a bad 1970s Michael Caine spy film
or something Andy McNab would write.
I'm not having a go at you guys, but I can't beleive that so many people in the media, the government, the country, are seriously entertaining this idea...
Satire is dead. Quality journalism is dead. We're living in a fantasy world know.
It's only 12 days into the new year and already I'm cracking up
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, that whole "Asserts a compelling state interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins" would basically require the state to ensure that every citizen of the state is looked after.
So, providing healthcare, housing, food, work etc. Everything that humans require to survive is now a compelling state interest, and yet I'd feel safe betting money they wouldn't follow through on that side of it. Oh and don't forget abolishing the Death Penalty as the state has a compelling interest in protecting human physical life.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, that whole "Asserts a compelling state interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins" would basically require the state to ensure that every citizen of the state is looked after.
So, providing healthcare, housing, food, work etc. Everything that humans require to survive is now a compelling state interest, and yet I'd feel safe betting money they wouldn't follow through on that side of it. Oh and don't forget abolishing the Death Penalty as the state has a compelling interest in protecting human physical life.
They really didn't think this one through.
Almost as if it's not a serious attempt at lawmaking, but rather grandstanding in front of the true believers.
I'm responding only in regards to the idea that if Russian intelligence does X, then Putin must be behind it/know about it. It's fallacious to assume that Putin has a complete handle on his own intelligence service.
In other news, President Obama has ended the "wet foot dry foot" policy that allowed Cuban expats to gain permanent resident status in the US. This is just one part of the overall diplomatic strategy the President has chosen as the way forward in normalizing relations with Cuba.
Verviedi wrote: Your cheap attempt to use emotion-based arguments has failed. Abortion is a necessary procedure. Is it unpleasant? Yes. But it it necessary. If abortion were outlawed, it would he establishing a precedent that women do not have a right to their own bodies.
Also, fetuses do not have the necessary feel pain until 20 weeks. I'm going to entirely avoid your personal anecdote.
I'd love to see the report that fetuses don't feel pain until 20 weeks. Gives me something to look up at next break.
It SHOULD be an emotion based argument. Lets say somebody has an unsterilized prize winning beagle that is the favorite to win Westminster and two months before the show it gets out and gets pregnant. The owner obviously can't have the dog getting teats and costing them the competition and all the windfalls tied to it. Does that person then have the right to have the puppies aborted? Actually, maybe the sterilization thing is more of an option. I mean, we spay and neuter pets because we don't want overpopulation. Vasectomies and tubal ligation seems perfectly reasonable especially with people who are dead set that they won't have children.
As far as necessary: the geneticists job when we were referred to them was to recommend aborting our son because of the issues tied to Down Syndrome. He had open heart surgery at 5 months to repair the issue with his and is now thriving, hitting developmental milestones ahead of what is expected of someone with his condition. If there was some condition that was going to result in the fetus being dead or dying at birth and/or would cause the death of the mother, I could see the argument. But what about the people who simply don't want a pregnancy? No medical reasoning behind the proceedure, just simply poor or nonexistent contraception. Necessary is VERY much a misnomer.
Breotan wrote: I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. ...
Except that they aren't.
Read the BBC reports. "Mainstream media" has had this stuff since October, and sat on it because they like to do boring fact checking before releasing a story.
LordofHats wrote: And yet, Roe V Wade should be the SCOTUS decision everyone in the internet age should be happy to have. The next four years are totally the time to kill the right to privacy forever because feth consequences anyone who disagrees with glorious leader is just fake news or someone who should shut up anyway.
Yup. We'll have to give such a program a catchy name. Shame Prism is already taken... Perhaps the Germans will even catch this new Administration spying on them
To get back to my earlier point, I am not asking if people think the Trump bed wetting story is true. I am asking if you think it's impossible to be true.
For instance, the Obamas are a cultured, gracious, well-bred couple. It's impossible to imagine them hiring prostitutes to wet on GW Bush's bed. I can't imagine GW Bush hiring prostitutes to wet on the Clinton's bed, or the Clintons hiring prostitutes to wet on George Bush's bed, etc. etc.
As for being a germophobe, that's exactly why Trump would hire prostitutes to wet on his enemy's bed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: As I said, something that will be laughed out of court. They;ll need to put 2-3 super right-wing judges int he supreme court in place of liberal.moderate ones to even have a chance. It's just a waste of money. And considering that Indiana currently is $46,377,635,000 in debt according to ballotopedia, it's not exactly the best thing to be wasting money on.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to my earlier point, I am not asking if people think the Trump bed wetting story is true. I am asking if you think it's impossible to be true.
For instance, the Obamas are a cultured, gracious, well-bred couple. It's impossible to imagine them hiring prostitutes to wet on GW Bush's bed. I can't imagine GW Bush hiring prostitutes to wet on the Clinton's bed, or the Clintons hiring prostitutes to wet on George Bush's bed, etc. etc.
As for being a germophobe, that's exactly why Trump would hire prostitutes to wet on his enemy's bed.
Impossible? NO.
Requiring enormous effort to suspend disbelief? Yeah... I think so. Because he'd have to be into that kind of kink. He acts like a weathy, flaggerantly playboy who can/did get any chick he wants.
I also think it's stray voltage, designed to hide potential Russian/Mobster connections of Trump's inner circle.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to my earlier point, I am not asking if people think the Trump bed wetting story is true. I am asking if you think it's impossible to be true.
For instance, the Obamas are a cultured, gracious, well-bred couple. It's impossible to imagine them hiring prostitutes to wet on GW Bush's bed. I can't imagine GW Bush hiring prostitutes to wet on the Clinton's bed, or the Clintons hiring prostitutes to wet on George Bush's bed, etc. etc.
As for being a germophobe, that's exactly why Trump would hire prostitutes to wet on his enemy's bed.
So you're asking whether it is impossible to be true the a prank from 4chan, which was found by someone connected to the intelligence community who leaked the story to Republican never-Trumpers, without verifying the story could in fact be true.
What you are asking is people to take leave of their senses, abandon all rational thought, ignore the evidence provided and instead rely on their biases.
Trump and the Republicans do not have the broad support of the American People for a repressive regime on gays and so on.
Don't buy into Trump's lies about an overwhelming victory. He got less than half the votes. He got one of the smallest EC votes for decades, and only managed that by squeaky thin margins in a couple of major swing states like Florida, plus the built-in conservative bias of the EC system.
The majority of the US public are not anti-gay, etc.
if Trump tries to bring in a gay-bashing bill, or a muslim-mashing measure, he's going to have to fight the will of the majority of the people.
Co'tor Shas wrote: As I said, something that will be laughed out of court. They;ll need to put 2-3 super right-wing judges int he supreme court in place of liberal.moderate ones to even have a chance. It's just a waste of money. And considering that Indiana currently is $46,377,635,000 in debt according to ballotopedia, it's not exactly the best thing to be wasting money on.
Indiana, in dreary Flyover Country, is 17th in the nation for fiscal health. New York by comparison is 42nd
Yeah because we like stuff such as public schools, support for our poor, and well-funded hospitals.
But it was more the point, why is Indiana wasting money on this, instead of, say, cutting their debt more or increasing services. The point is that this isn't pointless political grandstanding, this is what they actually believe.
If the right doesn't want the left to get upset about their crazy waste of time legislation, maybe they should stop trying to pass crazy waste of time legislation. Telling people not to be outraged at Indiana's latest bull - er, 'scuse me, bill because it 'obviously won't pass' makes about as much sense as people who voted for Trump telling liberals that Trump is their fault.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to my earlier point, I am not asking if people think the Trump bed wetting story is true. I am asking if you think it's impossible to be true.
For instance, the Obamas are a cultured, gracious, well-bred couple. It's impossible to imagine them hiring prostitutes to wet on GW Bush's bed. I can't imagine GW Bush hiring prostitutes to wet on the Clinton's bed, or the Clintons hiring prostitutes to wet on George Bush's bed, etc. etc.
As for being a germophobe, that's exactly why Trump would hire prostitutes to wet on his enemy's bed.
So you're asking whether it is impossible to be true the a prank from 4chan, which was found by someone connected to the intelligence community who leaked the story to Republican never-Trumpers, without verifying the story could in fact be true.
What you are asking is people to take leave of their senses, abandon all rational thought, ignore the evidence provided and instead rely on their biases.
No, I have tried to make it clear that what I am asking is whether you think Trump is the kind of person who is impossible to imagine pulling this kind of stunt. Not whether you think he did pull this stunt.
And just think of the things that could have been achieved if people stopped bitching about Roe v Wade and actually starting demanding the government live by it?
You honestly believe this will pass the public vote, protests, and legal challenges?
I don't know. Did a guy who bragged about not paying taxes, state support for committing acts of war that "wouldn't start a war", profess a profoundly out of touch perception of the mechanisms of politics, and was either too dim or too uncaring to notice the blatant white power message of his own political campaign just get elected president?
I need to stop wondering when people on the right might actually start looking at that end of politics introspectively.
The difference between this inane piece of political grandstanding and Trump's campaign is so vast as to make comparison worthless
After all how could a single grandstanding bill ever compare to an entire campaign of grandstanding
I don't suppose anyone else watched the unintelligible rambling of a confused man during his first press conference? It was painful to watch, not just because the majority of what was said was vacuous - but also because of the level of spite evident in the few things that were said clearly.
I'm sure I'm not the only person taking note of this
Breotan wrote: In other news, President Obama has ended the "wet foot dry foot" policy that allowed Cuban expats to gain permanent resident status in the US. This is just one part of the overall diplomatic strategy the President has chosen as the way forward in normalizing relations with Cuba.
Yeah... what an donkey-cave.
But you gotta hand it to Obama, he's trying to paint Drumpf into a corner.
Does he reverse it when he's inaugurated? Raising his stature with the Cubans in Florida?
If he does, how does he square his anti-illegal immigration stance?
In my view, the only way he can is to distinguish that Cubans fleeing are political refugees.
But, yeah... dick move.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wulfmar wrote: I don't suppose anyone else watched the unintelligible rambling of a confused man during his first press conference? It was painful to watch, not just because the majority of what was said was vacuous - but also because of the level of spite evident in the few things that were said clearly.
I'm sure I'm not the only person taking note of this
THe media has gone the deep end since the 2000 election...
As such, the view from the right side of the political spectrum wanted a politician to "take on the media".
Enter Trump. That's what he did during the campaign... and it's what he'll do as President.
So, here's the thing. Like I said, I watched the end-ish of it and at around the first section of what I watched, I thought, "well, ok, the hand thing is a bit annoying, but hey, that's a thing that American's do." I wasn't liking what he said or anything but I was very much along the lines of, "ok, so, bad president, fine. World can survive that. Maybe all the horrible stuff is just campaigning or being a private individual with an audience, or actually, even yes, 'locker room talk' - Heck, I've known plenty of jerks in my life..."
But when he got onto that point there at the start of that highlight video from Auntie Beeb (now there's another 'beauty'). There's just no two ways about it, that is goddamned scary scary stuff. That is, "I will lead the planet to hell itself as long as people cheer me and I get to look tough."
I literally do not have the vocabulary to express my response to it all.
Wulfmar wrote: I don't suppose anyone else watched the unintelligible rambling of a confused man during his first press conference? It was painful to watch, not just because the majority of what was said was vacuous - but also because of the level of spite evident in the few things that were said clearly.
I'm sure I'm not the only person taking note of this
They don't care, as long as they get to take away reproductive rights from women and uninsure millions of people and put up the vastly "better" health savings accounts.
Wonder how long till the people that voted to put Trump in office and give the GOP control of the Senate and House realize that they're going to be some of the first victims of the dismantling of the ACA
To be honest, the ACA was the subject he was talking about and I was thinking, "maybe it is all a bit hysteria."
I mean, it's really no secret that the ACA was the best thing that could be implemented at the time with an obstructive congress and, even in the UK, I'm aware that it has many, many shortcomings.
But, hypothetically, in a sane world, it would not be unrealistic for a Republican controlled government to repeal and replace it with something called something else, but is basically the same thing with a Republican flavour to it.
- One of the things that happens in the UK is with each new Prime Minister or new government, the education system is completely torn up and reorganised. It's happened so many times it's practically a tradition. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. Most of the time it's generally both in slightly different ways to the last time.
d-usa wrote: But the like the ACA, it's ObamaCare that they don't like.
Hence the main problem, ignorance, willful or otherwise
I am in the heart of Trump country. I think I will go to work tomorrow and ask some people who hate Obamacare what they think of the new TrumpHealth initiative. I'm sure I'll get some enthusiastic support for manadatory coverage, exchanges, and pre-existing coverage protection.
So, you know the big attack on the journalist during Trump's news-conference he's so proud of. The people who clapped are literally paid staffers. Jesus Christ America, who have you elected? He has literally paid people to be a crowd, to make him look clever.
My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either.
This isn't about political pointscoring, or one team good and one team bad. Or even there being idiots on the internet (God knows on a country of 300+ million there's going to be a fair few).
This is about people's actual lives and whether they'll continue to have one or not.
Compel wrote: My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either.
Republicans have no alternative beyond the "put money into the bank to pay for your future medical bills" plan. Hopefully this will be the death knell for the factions of the party that have pulled it so far to the right.
Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
Compel wrote: My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either.
Republicans have no alternative beyond the "put money into the bank to pay for your future medical bills" plan. Hopefully this will be the death knell for the factions of the party that have pulled it so far to the right.
That's simply not true as they have put forward numerous plans.
The one I'm interested in, was "tacked on" the "allow plans sold acrossed states plan and allows grouped plans by industry"... is to allow community healthcare organizations to band together to act like 'non-profit co-opts'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Compel wrote: My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either.
Republicans have no alternative beyond the "put money into the bank to pay for your future medical bills" plan. Hopefully this will be the death knell for the factions of the party that have pulled it so far to the right.
That's simply not true as they have put forward numerous plans.
The one I'm interested in, was "tacked on" the "allow plans sold acrossed states plan and allows grouped plans by industry"... is to allow community healthcare organizations to band together to act like 'non-profit co-opts'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
Oh boy whembly saying people don't deserve something, but given your stance on womens reproductive rights it isn't a surprise that you don't agree with people deserving/having rights for things
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
Just that nonsense in the declaration of independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We have the right to Life, proper health care leads to a longer life.
Health insurance is not needed, america should join the rest of the civilized and enlightened world when it comes to health care. Universal care funded by taxes.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
Just that nonsense in the declaration of independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We have the right to Life, proper health care leads to a longer life.
That's up for debate... and actually, people has tried to take certain providers to court claiming they don't own money and that the government should pay for it. As you can imagine, they didn't get very far...
Health insurance is not needed, america should join the rest of the civilized and enlightened world when it comes to health care. Universal care funded by taxes.
Sure... I'm in favor of the Canadian Medicare system.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
And that the republicans will not implement a system that even comes close to anything that tries to help people. But maybe they just want people to die or lose their life savings by repealing
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.
Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.
It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.
Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.
It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.
What does that statement have to do with what I just said?
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.
Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.
It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.
What does that statement have to do with what I just said?
Nothing its just whembly moving the goal posts because he got caught being a giant donkey cave
I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
d-usa wrote: Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".
He's right.
And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.
Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).
First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.
Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.
That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.
It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.
Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.
It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.
What does that statement have to do with what I just said?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
It's really just part of the GOP's Plan anyways.
Rob from social security
Demonize the people who dare to want the money they paid into it
Keep raising the age and hoping people die off before they can collect so they never have to pay back what was stolen.
So it's in the GOP's interest to want people to die young, and to do what they can to insure it happens, so they can keep robbing the cookie jar.
That's not the point. I never argued that it's a right, you brought it up. My point was that the response to "Millions of people will lose coverage, many who need it to survive" should not be "Well' it's not like they have a right to health insurance".
That's not the point. I never argued that it's a right, you brought it up. My point was that the response to "Millions of people will lose coverage, many who need it to survive" should not be "Well' it's not like they have a right to health insurance".
Well, it's nicer than the "feth them" that's the core of the message.
Thread Warning - There's been some personal attacks and general rudeness here. I'm pissy because I had to break out the orange letters, and I don't like using the orange letters. Still better than the red letters.
Anyway, deep breath, toy soldiers forum, all that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
The ultimate irony here is that one of the Republican attacks on the ACA back in the day was regarding so-called death panels. By voting to repeal the ACA with nothing in place to help those who are alive today solely due to the ACA, the GOP will, in essence, be a death panel itself.
Verviedi wrote: I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
Maybe. But religious voters this election showed they will line up for the Republican candidate no matter how odious he is, in both a policy sense and a personal moral sense.
One of the interesting dynamics about really loyal voting groups is that while it gives the party they are loyal to great power, it actually reduces the power of the voting base. When they show they will show up and vote no matter what, they are easy to take for granted. Look at black voters and the democratic party - Democrats don't have to offer them a thing because they know they're not voting Republican.
The religious right has that problem even worse, because at least black voters will turn up in reduced numbers when they're not impressed with the Democratic candidate. The religious right turn up no matter what, so why burn political capital doing anything for them?
Similarly, why should Democrats fear them? Knowing they will hate the Democrat and vote Republican no matter what, Democrats have nothing to lose by courting groups the religious right finds scary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact.
No-one has accepted the claims as fact, every single report you can find clearly states them as allegations. Please don't make things up.
Eight years ago we had 28 million people without health insurance.
They were not dying off in job lots.
Now, after eight years, we intend to roll that atrocious piece of legislation back.
Those 28 million or so will lose their healthcare and will probably STILL not be dying off in job lots.
ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.
If you want to talk real reform.
Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.
Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.
Let's open up new intermediate classes of healthcare providers. PRN/PA driven levels of care. You do not need to see a bonafide doctor when your kid is running a fever and vomiting.
Let's reform the FDA, get antibiotics OTC, and BC to be OTC.
And let's pass a law that says the legal drug dealers cannot advertise their fething product on tv.
Let's start sending doctors and drug sales reps to jail for prescribing drugs that people do not need.
Let's create a nationwide dispensary that will allow the common citizen to purchase their prescriptions at cost.
But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Putin had planned for years to blackmail Trump into running for President? wtf x 1000
Or just got hands of it and decided to keep in case. Maybe he planned originally to use it for good business deal?
Anyway fact is USA goverment was notified of such a note. Media would be failing it's duty if it did NOT report that such a note was given regardless of whether information in note was true or not. What matters is there is enough possibility that USA intelligence agency bothered with it.
Note news sites aren't generally calling it IS true. They are just reporting that US top heads were informed of such a possibility. That's fact already confirmed by Biden.
And the countries that do have a different concept of "over the counter" than we do, different processes, and educational standards.
They also take tax money pay for honey boo boo's healthcare.
People here can't even take prescribed antibiotics correctly, selling them OTC in our system will kill people. I deal with the idiots who will either kill themselves or contribute to the next public health crisis every single day. Antibiotics are very dangerous, and are very hard to get right, and making them OTC is the dumbest thing out of your list. And that list isn't great to begin with.
Mitochondria wrote: ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.
That's just looking at one aspect of the ACA and ignoring everything else it tried to do. Not being dropped from your insurance benefited everyone. Not being denied for preexisting conditions benefited everyone. Defining what "preexisting conditions" means benefited everyone. The biggest mistake the ACA made was that it tried to patch a bunch of holes in the healthcare system without resolving any of the underlying problems that produced said holes.
If you want to talk real reform.
Tried that. No one was interested. We got the ACA instead.
Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.
A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask which hospital will treat him at the lowest cost.
Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.
Republicans just shot that down.
Let's open up new intermediate classes of healthcare providers. PRN/PA driven levels of care. You do not need to see a bonafide doctor when your kid is running a fever and vomiting.
It's amazing we don't already have this honestly (though if your kid has somiting you should probably see a doctor...). We don't need full doctors to give someone a basic check up.
Let's reform the FDA
Lets reform patents so big pharma stops abusing quasi-monopolies and market conditions to drive prices up for the sake of profits. Other than a law mandating all studies a company pays for/produces be publicly published in full (no more sitting on the studies that found your drug causes cancer), I don't think the FDA needs much reform. The biggest reform it needs actual teeth to enforce mountains of regulations that companies ignore. Pharma spends almost twice as much on marketing as they do on development, and FDA approval is a fraction of the later. If they're so worried about their bottom line stop buying so much ad space. They're already posting some of the best profit margins of any industry. I see little reason to cry for them.
Let's create a nationwide dispensary that will allow the common citizen to purchase their prescriptions at cost.
That's a great idea. But I mean, at that point you might as well just go single payer. No more profits from the suffering of the sick, no more fearmongering for insurance premiums, and an end to the exploitation of the current healthcare scheme.. Just roll everyone into Medicare.
d-usa wrote:OTC antibiotics is the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today, and I Reddit.
And this. The number of drug resistant bacteria are already on the rise the leading cause of which is people using them when they don't have to and using them too much. That bit above about the FDA lacking teeth? For decades now the meat industry has been using antibiotics to treat livestock, which not only violates FDA regulations, but increasing the prominence of drug resistant microbes because those drugs are still in the meat when people eat it. That some of those drugs are just plain not meant to be in humans is another matter. The FDA has been unsuccessful in tackling the problem due to a lack of support.
There's counter arguments on that site to the one I linked. Read those too if you like, but there are observed and obvious negatives to over the counter sale of antibiotics with no prescription.
As a policy, it isn't a good idea to over saturate the community with OTC ABX because such practice would likely increase the drug resistant-super bugs.
Kilkrazy wrote: if Trump tries to bring in a gay-bashing bill, or a muslim-mashing measure, he's going to have to fight the will of the majority of the people.
Problem with that being you don't need to have majority's support the way US system works...
Urgent care clinics are a thing.
Walk-in clinics are a thing.
PA as Primary Care providers are a thing.
Full independent practice APRNs are a thing.
Community Paramedics are a thing.
RN health hotlines and consults are a thing.
Expanding these kind of things is often shut down as liberal welfare talk, interfering with capitalist healthcare, etc. I've been involved with pushing legislature for incremental progress and policy reforms in healthcare in Oklahoma for a few years now. And we are getting lots of resistance in our Republican legislature, and the resistance is led by MD Republicans serving in our legislature.
Compel wrote: My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either..
*sarcasm* Ah but he's not multimillionaire. He's therefore trash not worth living. *sarcasm*
Compel wrote: My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either..
*sarcasm* Ah but he's not multimillionaire. He's therefore trash not worth living. *sarcasm*
One of my favorite recent moments (two days ago) was a guy who said "I hope they repel Obamacare. The ACA is better" *que weird looks from everyone who heard him*
Mitochondria wrote: ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.
That's just looking at one aspect of the ACA and ignoring everything else it tried to do. Not being dropped from your insurance benefited everyone. Not being denied for preexisting conditions benefited everyone. Defining what "preexisting conditions" means benefited everyone. The biggest mistake the ACA made was that it tried to patch a bunch of holes in the healthcare system without resolving any of the underlying problems that produced said holes.
GOP "states" that they'll address the preexisting conditions conumdrum... we shall see what that is...
But, yes, your last sentence is really spot on.
If you want to talk real reform.
Tried that. No one was interested. We got the ACA instead.
A little over stated.
At some point the GOP asked for a seat at the table... Pelosi/Reid said "nah". They really, REALLY got shafted by the blue dog Democrats who were jittery of single payer/NHS system.
Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.
No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.
This, right here, is one of the reasons why Healthcare is expensive. It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.
A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask which hospital will treat him at the lowest cost.
You can make your preference known.
Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.
Republicans just shot that down.
We'll see about that. This is one thing they need to keep... otherwise, they'll suffer enormous consequences imo.
Let's open up new intermediate classes of healthcare providers. PRN/PA driven levels of care. You do not need to see a bonafide doctor when your kid is running a fever and vomiting.
It's amazing we don't already have this honestly (though if your kid has somiting you should probably see a doctor...). We don't need full doctors to give someone a basic check up.
It's slowly coming around. It's generally called "Urgent Care Centers"... mostly staffed by nurse practitioner whom (in most states) can prescribe anything sans narcotics.
Let's reform the FDA
Lets reform patents so big pharma stops abusing quasi-monopolies and market conditions to drive prices up for the sake of profits. Other than a law mandating all studies a company pays for/produces be publicly published in full (no more sitting on the studies that found your drug causes cancer), I don't think the FDA needs much reform. The biggest reform it needs actual teeth to enforce mountains of regulations that companies ignore. Pharma spends almost twice as much on marketing as they do on development, and FDA approval is a fraction of the later. If they're so worried about their bottom line stop buying so much ad space. They're already posting some of the best profit margins of any industry. I see little reason to cry for them.
ABSO.FETHING.LUTELY!
Let's create a nationwide dispensary that will allow the common citizen to purchase their prescriptions at cost.
That's a great idea. But I mean, at that point you might as well just go single payer. No more profits from the suffering of the sick, no more fearmongering for insurance premiums, and an end to the exploitation of the current healthcare scheme.. Just roll everyone into Medicare.
? Kinda strange segue here... It's possible for the state/fed government to this up for the needy & poor. It's really inventory management with prescribers.
I never understood why, at least Medicaid/Medicare doesn't do this anyways to exert downward pressure on supply prices.
d-usa wrote:OTC antibiotics is the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today, and I Reddit.
And this. The number of drug resistant bacteria are already on the rise the leading cause of which is people using them when they don't have to and using them too much. That bit above about the FDA lacking teeth? For decades now the meat industry has been using antibiotics to treat livestock, which not only violates FDA regulations, but increasing the prominence of drug resistant microbes because those drugs are still in the meat when people eat it. That some of those drugs are just plain not meant to be in humans is another matter. The FDA has been unsuccessful in tackling the problem due to a lack of support.
There's counter arguments on that site to the one I linked. Read those too if you like, but there are observed and obvious negatives to over the counter sale of antibiotics with no prescription.
Yup. It's also a complex issue and while we're seeing adverse problems with that... there's also a cost/benefit debate with it as well.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
I'm not necessarily getting "lifesaving" medication/treatment due to the ACA, but I do deal with some stuff that qualify as pre-existing conditions that are miserable to deal with without medication/treatment. Things that would have put me on an insurance company's coverage chopping block years ago, and things that will make getting health coverage a hell of a lot harder if not impossible while I'm finishing up my college degrees.
On top of that, I'm scheduled to have a surgery in a few months to deal with some nerve damage/mitigate any worse damage. I'm fething terrified of what's coming in the next few months, and whether I'm going to have to deal with the nerve pain for several years at a minimum - along with the long term damage of having it untreated. Today was one of the most miserable days of my life.
If it does end up with the projected repeal with minimal replacement, I really don't know what I'm going to do. Part of me would want to see everyone who is pretty much killed by a repeal to travel to D.C. and die in front of the White House and Congress. Drown them in our corpses.
No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.
Again.
A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."
This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!
It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.
This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.
No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.
Again.
A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."
This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!
For heart attack, every trauma ED is required by law to stabilize the patient, so in that case, it's generally going to be the nearest location.
Most of the "shopping" are either long term treatment or elective surgeries.
I can tell you, the overall pricing for something like a Dialysis treatment, or knee surgery varies greatly from entity to entity.
Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right?
Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.
It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.
This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.
In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.
No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.
Again.
A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."
This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!
For heart attack, every trauma ED is required by law to stabilize the patient, so in that case, it's generally going to be the nearest location.
Most of the "shopping" are either long term treatment or elective surgeries.
I can tell you, the overall pricing for something like a Dialysis treatment, or knee surgery varies greatly from entity to entity.
Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right?
Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.
It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.
This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.
In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.
Stabilize does not mean they are fine. They should probably be admitted to the hospital to see a cardiologist. That can be very dangerous.
If I'm crossing the street and a drunk driver plows into me and slams me into a brick wall at 80 MPH (assuming I'm even alive...) I am not going to ask the ambulance which hospital is the cheapest. I'm not going to ask how much it costs to save my life. People do not think this way. Hospitals do not advertise their spine surgery as cheaper than their competitors, and buying one coma bed will never get me one free. I'm not going to drive ten miles further to save $400 on the doctor who reattached my arm.
I'm talking about the fact that no one tries to save money on saving their own life, and no one goes shopping for the cheapest knee surgery. They go shopping for the best knee surgery, and if they can get it for less great, but there is only one acceptable quality of knee surgery. It's not like a car where you can buy a crappy coup that'll need replacing in five years because its cheap crap. It's your bloody knee, not a screen protector for your iPhone (who the feth pays $60 for a screen protector? I bought one at a gas station for $10...)
Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right? Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.
And you're still confusing the things that happen on the back end with those that happen on the patient end. Hospitals do not draw patients in by advertising the cheapest bone marrow transplants and coupons to buy one coma bed get two free. What you're talking about is just another end of why health insurance is one of the worst ways to finance healthcare after the money under my mattress. It's a convoluted mess.
In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.
A lot of people don't live in a metropolitian city, and I didn't say people never do it I said that fixing opaque pricing structures and the inefficiency of our healthcare system doesn't get fixed by patients doing such.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
Amazing isn't it that the Trump movement can be born out of the despair of life of the downcast, unemployed and uninsured, but according to prominent right wingers that's just going to get worse because they have no right.
Hey man, those injuns are getting rambunctious and need to be reminded who won, and no one is better for that job than an old white guy with a mustache
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
Medical expenses used to be the major cause of bankruptcy. Now it isn't because people can get coverage when they get sick. Nice to see you're in favour of dropping that.
ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down.
Nope, that's nonsense. If you're referring to the exchanges... uh people have to buy the insurance listed there. Perhaps you're talkign about the expansion of medicaid... in which case you're trying to say that medicaid at the old income limit was okay, but at the new income limit it 'goes beyond welfare'. That argument makes no sense and means nothing.
Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.
Is a good reform, especially if it were coupled with a reform requiring single pricing of procedures so people weren't forced to use insurers just to access their discounted rates.
Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.
This argument has sucked for 8 fething years now. How can you and so many others still be posting the same bad argument for so long.
Anyhow, its nonsense to think you can remove pre-existing conditions as a stand-alone. Because if people can access insurance once they are aware of a pre-existing condition, then they won't get insurance until then. You need healthy people paying in to offset the sick people, that's how insurance works. This means you need something to require people to get insurance before they need it. Let's call it a mandate. And then you have to accept that some people are quite poor, and so will need subsidies in able to afford the mandated insurance. Put all that together and you have ACA.
If you don't want insurance companies to be able to deny people coverage, then you need a structure like ACA. That's just how it is.
Let's start sending doctors and drug sales reps to jail for prescribing drugs that people do not need.
Mwahaha! Yeah, that's not going to open a legislative and ethical quagmire at all.
But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.
But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.
I don't think you understand what insurance is.
He also just said that he'd rather a kid died than he contribute a tiny amount of money to save her life. I don't think he's going to listen to reason.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
I'm not necessarily getting "lifesaving" medication/treatment due to the ACA, but I do deal with some stuff that qualify as pre-existing conditions that are miserable to deal with without medication/treatment. Things that would have put me on an insurance company's coverage chopping block years ago, and things that will make getting health coverage a hell of a lot harder if not impossible while I'm finishing up my college degrees.
On top of that, I'm scheduled to have a surgery in a few months to deal with some nerve damage/mitigate any worse damage. I'm fething terrified of what's coming in the next few months, and whether I'm going to have to deal with the nerve pain for several years at a minimum - along with the long term damage of having it untreated. Today was one of the most miserable days of my life.
If it does end up with the projected repeal with minimal replacement, I really don't know what I'm going to do. Part of me would want to see everyone who is pretty much killed by a repeal to travel to D.C. and die in front of the White House and Congress. Drown them in our corpses.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.
I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.
Amazing isn't it that the Trump movement can be born out of the despair of life of the downcast, unemployed and uninsured, but according to prominent right wingers that's just going to get worse because they have no right.
That's the amazing thing. People who support Trump are generally the ones that will be most hurt by Trump...
But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.
I don't think you understand what insurance is.
He also just said that he'd rather a kid died than he contribute a tiny amount of money to save her life. I don't think he's going to listen to reason.
Guess he's against his money being used to anything that doesn't directly benefit him...
So okay let's see. His money can't be used to say pay taxes of police of another city he never visit. Roads he doesn't use? No way! He paid the money! It's not going to be wasted on that! Etc etc etc.
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Rep. William Shirley, a Republican whose District 84 covers Clark, Jasper and Newton counties, wants to amend Section 37-13-6 of the Mississippi Code of 1972. The code provides stipulations on the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and when, where and how to present the flag on school grounds.
Shirley’s update would tack on a $1,500 fine for any “violation” of the code, although the bill says “any student or teacher who objects to reciting the oath of allegiance shall be excused from participating without penalty.”
According to Shirley’s House Bill 205, “The failure of any school or school district to require the teachers under their control to have all pupils repeat the oath of allegiance ... shall result in the school or district being assessed a fine for such violation. Any school district found not to be in compliance ... shall be fined in an amount of $1,500 for each violation.”
The mother of a West Harrison High School student said her son was threatened with disciplinary actions for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at school in October. Harrison County School District Superintendent Roy Gill said it was a misunderstanding.
School districts found in violation will be required to pay the fine 30 days from the date of the notice of violation.
If approved, the bill would take effect July 1.
TBF you can choose to sing "Tomorrow belongs to me" instead.
But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.
I don't think you understand what insurance is.
He also just said that he'd rather a kid died than he contribute a tiny amount of money to save her life. I don't think he's going to listen to reason.
Guys, people don't buy insurance to be altruistic or because they want other people to have lower costs. People buy insurance to help themselves, it's wholly based on self interest. Why do I have home owner insurance? Because while my house isn't currently on fire and I don't expect it to burn down I don't want to have to be solely responsible for coughing up the remainder of my mortgage if it does. Same with health insurance, I have it because while I'm currently healthy if I were to get sick or injured I want the insurance company to use some of the money it makes off my premium payments to help defray my costs. I want health insurance to protect myself and my family, I don't care if my premiums and coverage makes healthcare more affordable or available for others, that's completely out of my control.
And just think of the things that could have been achieved if people stopped bitching about Roe v Wade and actually starting demanding the government live by it?
All the wasted time.
Agreed
LordofHats wrote: I don't know. Did a guy who bragged about not paying taxes, state support for committing acts of war that "wouldn't start a war", profess a profoundly out of touch perception of the mechanisms of politics, and was either too dim or too uncaring to notice the blatant white power message of his own political campaign just get elected president?
We had two terrible candidates. We had a South Park election.
LordofHats wrote: I need to stop wondering when people on the right might actually start looking at that end of politics introspectively.
Except that I'm not right wing. isidewith shows me as centrist, with libertarian leanings.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah because we like stuff such as public schools, support for our poor, and well-funded hospitals.
But it was more the point, why is Indiana wasting money on this, instead of, say, cutting their debt more or increasing services. The point is that this isn't pointless political grandstanding, this is what they actually believe.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump and the Republicans do not have the broad support of the American People for a repressive regime on gays and so on.
Don't buy into Trump's lies about an overwhelming victory. He got less than half the votes. He got one of the smallest EC votes for decades, and only managed that by squeaky thin margins in a couple of major swing states like Florida, plus the built-in conservative bias of the EC system.
The majority of the US public are not anti-gay, etc.
if Trump tries to bring in a gay-bashing bill, or a muslim-mashing measure, he's going to have to fight the will of the majority of the people.
I don't remember Trump running on a gay bashing platform. In fact wasn't he on stage with the Rainbow flag and said that same sex marriage was settled (or words to that effect)?
Remember when a small fringe said that Obama was going to round up people and put them in FEMA camps? Remember how crazy they sounded? Know you know how people spouting the gay internment camp nonsense sounds.
d-usa wrote: Can't believe that our intelligence community didn't realize it's a 4chan prank before briefing POTUS and POTUS-to-be.
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because British food sucked, and someone had a prophecy, a prophecy that there would come a Savior, a Hero, and that hero had a name: TexMex.
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because British food sucked, and someone had a prophecy, a prophecy that there would come a Savior, a Hero, and that hero had a name: TexMex.
Hold your horses here, you Texans were Spanish or Mexican back then!
Don't try and claim credit for the work of the 13 colonies in 1776. (technically it should be 12 in my book, but that's a debate for another day )
And you lot were Confederates as well ! damn rebs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump appeared at a rally flourishing a Rainbow Alliance flag to show LGBT support for his cause. It was upside down.
Say what you want about Trump, but the next 4 years will be comedy gold for us non-Americans.
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because British food sucked, and someone had a prophecy, a prophecy that there would come a Savior, a Hero, and that hero had a name: TexMex.
Hold your horses here, you Texans were Spanish or Mexican back then!
Don't try and claim credit for the work of the 13 colonies in 1776. (technically it should be 12 in my book, but that's a debate for another day )
And you lot were Confederates as well ! damn rebs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump appeared at a rally flourishing a Rainbow Alliance flag to show LGBT support for his cause. It was upside down.
Say what you want about Trump, but the next 4 years will be comedy gold for us non-Americans.
A few dreamers knew one day that New Spain would merge with the colonies, and these forethinking steenking gringoes could see deliverance in the future.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
In more important matters, Obama awarded his VP the highest civilian award the President can give for..,just being there. Not to be outdone Trump has promised to give the same award to the new Trump Hotel he's announced will be starting up...
He should form a select group to plug these leaks, have them answer only to the Oval office, should be called plumbers, and also to be on the safe side, they should meet at least once a month in the Watergate Hotel
I'm not sure that the Watergate Hotel has any wet rooms available though!
He should form a select group to plug these leaks, have them answer only to the Oval office, should be called plumbers, and also to be on the safe side, they should meet at least once a month in the Watergate Hotel
I'm not sure that the Watergate Hotel has any wet rooms available though!
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because coffee>tea.
Very very foolish words.
This documentary footage, featuring the Duke of Wellington, highlights the British preference for tea over coffee.
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because British food sucked, and someone had a prophecy, a prophecy that there would come a Savior, a Hero, and that hero had a name: TexMex.
Hold your horses here, you Texans were Spanish or Mexican back then!
Don't try and claim credit for the work of the 13 colonies in 1776. (technically it should be 12 in my book, but that's a debate for another day )
And you lot were Confederates as well ! damn rebs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump appeared at a rally flourishing a Rainbow Alliance flag to show LGBT support for his cause. It was upside down.
Say what you want about Trump, but the next 4 years will be comedy gold for us non-Americans.
A few dreamers knew one day that New Spain would merge with the colonies, and these forethinking steenking gringoes could see deliverance in the future.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
In more important matters, Obama awarded his VP the highest civilian award the President can give for..,just being there. Not to be outdone Trump has promised to give the same award to the new Trump Hotel he's announced will be starting up...
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really? Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service? Biden wasn't some rich kid turned politician. He came from a working class background and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate. Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service not to line his own pocket, but to serve and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS? What's that all about!
A Mississippi legislator has sponsored a bill that levies a $1,500 fine on any school that doesn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag within the first hour of class each school day.
Sometimes I wonder why the Americans even bothered with a revolution...
Because British food sucked, and someone had a prophecy, a prophecy that there would come a Savior, a Hero, and that hero had a name: TexMex.
Hold your horses here, you Texans were Spanish or Mexican back then!
Don't try and claim credit for the work of the 13 colonies in 1776. (technically it should be 12 in my book, but that's a debate for another day )
And you lot were Confederates as well ! damn rebs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump appeared at a rally flourishing a Rainbow Alliance flag to show LGBT support for his cause. It was upside down.
Say what you want about Trump, but the next 4 years will be comedy gold for us non-Americans.
A few dreamers knew one day that New Spain would merge with the colonies, and these forethinking steenking gringoes could see deliverance in the future.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
In more important matters, Obama awarded his VP the highest civilian award the President can give for..,just being there. Not to be outdone Trump has promised to give the same award to the new Trump Hotel he's announced will be starting up...
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really? Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service? Biden wasn't some rich kid turned politician. He came from a working class background and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate. Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service not to line his own pocket, but to serve and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS? What's that all about!
Because it is Obama and frazz hates anything that the president has or will do regardless
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really? Ignorant-I like that. I like Biden. i think Biden would have beaten Trump. But he hasn't done antying worthy of a medal. Sorry.
Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service? ***Translation getting paid a buttload of money sucking off the taxpayer.
He came from a working class background ***So did I. Where's my medal.
and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate. ***So he gets a medal for being the least rich? Thats your standard and you called me ignorant?
Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service ****Translation a politician, dedicated his life to being a paid politcian. So all polticians deserve medals now? Where's Nixon's medal? How about George W Bush?
not to line his own pocket, but to serve ***I missed where he refused the lifetime paycheck. Please tell me more.
and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS? ***Yep, because he didn't do anything worthy of a medal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it is Obama and frazz hates anything that the president has or will do regardless
Only someone who hasn't read my posts would type that. But thats ok, I get it. You're on Team D an if you're not on Team D then you're scum, just like people on Team R view anyone not on Team R.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
...who picked Mike Pence as his running mate.
And Pence is apparently the AntiChrist for...reasons.
Wait, wait, let me predict the next few posts. I'm going to ask you if you seriously think Mike Pence isn't anti-LGBT, you're going to say that he never made conversion therapy part of his platform because that's what we just talked about, I'm going to mention some of his stances like barring homosexuals from the military, redirecting federal funds from 'organizations that celebrate and encourage behaviors that spread HIV' to places that 'provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior' (which totally isn't code for 'take away AIDS research funding and give it to conversion therapy centers), his support of the horrific 'troubled teen' industry, or his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Then you're going to say something about weiner dogs and it's all going to get swallowed up by the thread for about a week until the next time you don't understand why someone dislikes Pence.
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really?
Ignorant-I like that. I like Biden. i think Biden would have beaten Trump. But he hasn't done antying worthy of a medal. Sorry.
Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service?
***Translation getting paid a buttload of money sucking off the taxpayer.
He came from a working class background
***So did I. Where's my medal.
and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate.
***So he gets a medal for being the least rich? Thats your standard and you called me ignorant?
Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service
****Translation a politician, dedicated his life to being a paid politcian. So all polticians deserve medals now? Where's Nixon's medal? How about George W Bush?
not to line his own pocket, but to serve
***I missed where he refused the lifetime paycheck. Please tell me more.
and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS?
***Yep, because he didn't do anything worthy of a medal.
BW: So, after refinement, your knock on his receiving an accolade for a lifetime dedicated to public service is basically that a) he didn't work his whole life for free and b) a criminal like Nixon didn't get one, so it's bogus. Yeah, ignorance is pretty much where I'm viewing your insult as coming from. You can be as partisan as you like, don't care, but you're over the line on this one.
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really?
Ignorant-I like that. I like Biden. i think Biden would have beaten Trump. But he hasn't done antying worthy of a medal. Sorry.
Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service?
***Translation getting paid a buttload of money sucking off the taxpayer.
He came from a working class background
***So did I. Where's my medal.
and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate.
***So he gets a medal for being the least rich? Thats your standard and you called me ignorant?
Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service
****Translation a politician, dedicated his life to being a paid politcian. So all polticians deserve medals now? Where's Nixon's medal? How about George W Bush?
not to line his own pocket, but to serve
***I missed where he refused the lifetime paycheck. Please tell me more.
and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS?
***Yep, because he didn't do anything worthy of a medal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it is Obama and frazz hates anything that the president has or will do regardless
Only someone who hasn't read my posts would type that. But thats ok, I get it. You're on Team D an if you're not on Team D then you're scum, just like people on Team R view anyone not on Team R.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
...who picked Mike Pence as his running mate.
And Pence is apparently the AntiChrist for...reasons.
There are plenty of republicans I respect, a good example is Kronk or Bigwaagh. But no frazz you bash on Obama at every turn so it is safe to say you do not like the man.
Also pence is anti lgbtq and if you can't see that, well there is no hope for you at this point
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Biden' qualification for the medal seem to be pretty much in line with the vast majority of other people that have gotten the medal.
It's the PresidentialMedal of Freedom. Obama can give it to anyone he wants.
I watched the press conference, where Biden was surprised... it was endearing and have no issues with it really.
Because it is Obama and frazz hates anything that the president has or will do regardless
Only someone who hasn't read my posts would type that. But thats ok, I get it. You're on Team D an if you're not on Team D then you're scum, just like people on Team R view anyone not on Team R.
The screaming that Trump is some anti-LGBT Torquemada is...misplaced. He doesn't care about that and never said anything negative about these issues-Jeez he's a NY Democrat.
...who picked Mike Pence as his running mate.
And Pence is apparently the AntiChrist for...reasons.
There are plenty of republicans I respect, a good example is Kronk or Bigwaagh. But no frazz you bash on Obama at every turn so it is safe to say you do not like the man.
Also pence is anti lgbtq and if you can't see that, well there is no hope for you at this point
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the law, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and simultaneous replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercises, rhetoric and feigned outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual actions on this matter come from the administration will tell at this point.
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really?
Ignorant-I like that. I like Biden. i think Biden would have beaten Trump. But he hasn't done antying worthy of a medal. Sorry.
Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service?
***Translation getting paid a buttload of money sucking off the taxpayer.
He came from a working class background
***So did I. Where's my medal.
and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate.
***So he gets a medal for being the least rich? Thats your standard and you called me ignorant?
Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service
****Translation a politician, dedicated his life to being a paid politcian. So all polticians deserve medals now? Where's Nixon's medal? How about George W Bush?
not to line his own pocket, but to serve
***I missed where he refused the lifetime paycheck. Please tell me more.
and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS?
***Yep, because he didn't do anything worthy of a medal.
BW: So, after refinement, your knock on his receiving an accolade for a lifetime dedicated to public service is basically that a) he didn't work his whole life for free and b) a criminal like Nixon didn't get one, so it's bogus. Yeah, ignorance is pretty much where I'm viewing your insult as coming from. You can be as partisan as you like, don't care, but you're over the line on this one.
I takes aggressive obfiscation to make a post like that.
I'll try again.
He received the higest award a President can give because...he was a politician for a long time, and didn't start rich (but ended rich). Ok, thats some standard.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
Simply stated... these are "wedge" issues designed to group factions together and pit them against each other for political support.
That swipe at Biden is just fething ignorant. "...just being there." Really?
Ignorant-I like that. I like Biden. i think Biden would have beaten Trump. But he hasn't done antying worthy of a medal. Sorry.
Doesn't have anything to do with rewarding a half a century of public service?
***Translation getting paid a buttload of money sucking off the taxpayer.
He came from a working class background
***So did I. Where's my medal.
and has been consistently ranked amongst the least wealthy in the Senate.
***So he gets a medal for being the least rich? Thats your standard and you called me ignorant?
Wow! A working man, from a working-class family dedicating his life to public service
****Translation a politician, dedicated his life to being a paid politcian. So all polticians deserve medals now? Where's Nixon's medal? How about George W Bush?
not to line his own pocket, but to serve
***I missed where he refused the lifetime paycheck. Please tell me more.
and you take an off-hand swipe at him because he got some very due acknowledgement from the POTUS?
***Yep, because he didn't do anything worthy of a medal.
BW: So, after refinement, your knock on his receiving an accolade for a lifetime dedicated to public service is basically that a) he didn't work his whole life for free and b) a criminal like Nixon didn't get one, so it's bogus. Yeah, ignorance is pretty much where I'm viewing your insult as coming from. You can be as partisan as you like, don't care, but you're over the line on this one.
I takes aggressive obfiscation to make a post like that.
I'll try again.
He received the higest award a President can give because...he was a politician for a long time, and didn't start rich (but ended rich). Ok, thats some standard.
BW: There might have been just a bit of some legislating at the highest levels in there too for pretty much all of that time, but please choose to ignore that. We all get it, Obama did something and your Pavlovian barking response went off.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
Your Constitution (or similar document) says all of you are equal. With the first round of civil rights happened, many States showed they could not be counted on to follow the spirit of that law. It required the highest authority in the land (Feds/SCotUS) to get certain States to treat those citizens equally.
Now here we are again, and many of those same States are finding themselves afoul of the same spirit of the "all equal" law, and the Feds/SCotUS are having to step in again.
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
It's not really a matter of the federal govt setting out to make a ruling on things like abortion or gay marriage as it is a matter of the federal govt, namely the courts and SCOTUS, that acts to protect US citizens from unconstitutional infringements of their rights by the states. With gay marriage for instance SCOTUS ruled that states can't say that a qualifying heterosexual couple can get married but a homosexual couple that meets the same qualifications can't get married because homophobia. That would be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the homosexual couple and the feds are responsible for enforcing the constitution.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
Your Constitution (or similar document) says all of you are equal. With the first round of civil rights happened, many States showed they could not be counted on to follow the spirit of that law. It required the highest authority in the land (Feds/SCotUS) to get certain States to treat those citizens equally.
Now here we are again, and many of those same States are finding themselves afoul of the same spirit of the "all equal" law, and the Feds/SCotUS are having to step in again.
Actually we had to amend our constitution several times over a few centuries to get everybody covered. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal but that's not a federal law or statute or anything of the sort. It's the document that the colonies put together to declare their independence from England. When the Declaration of Independence was written and issued we still didn't have a govt or a constitution at all.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
It's not really a matter of the federal govt setting out to make a ruling on things like abortion or gay marriage as it is a matter of the federal govt, namely the courts and SCOTUS, that acts to protect US citizens from unconstitutional infringements of their rights by the states. With gay marriage for instance SCOTUS ruled that states can't say that a qualifying heterosexual couple can get married but a homosexual couple that meets the same qualifications can't get married because homophobia. That would be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the homosexual couple and the feds are responsible for enforcing the constitution.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
Your Constitution (or similar document) says all of you are equal. With the first round of civil rights happened, many States showed they could not be counted on to follow the spirit of that law. It required the highest authority in the land (Feds/SCotUS) to get certain States to treat those citizens equally.
Now here we are again, and many of those same States are finding themselves afoul of the same spirit of the "all equal" law, and the Feds/SCotUS are having to step in again.
Actually we had to amend our constitution several times over a few centuries to get everybody covered. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal but that's not a federal law or statute or anything of the sort. It's the document that the colonies put together to declare their independence from England. When the Declaration of Independence was written and issued we still didn't have a govt or a constitution at all.
So it essentially boils down to a disagreement on the interpretation of what infringes life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? I guess I can understand that, it's similar to the disagreements on what infringes the 2nd amendment I suppose. Although I'm not sure I understand why the entire healthcare topic has been being managed at the top level too? As far as I'm aware every job I've ever worked has afforded healthcare, most with various coverage levels/options so why is that even a thing to debate or be discussed at that level?
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
It's not really a matter of the federal govt setting out to make a ruling on things like abortion or gay marriage as it is a matter of the federal govt, namely the courts and SCOTUS, that acts to protect US citizens from unconstitutional infringements of their rights by the states. With gay marriage for instance SCOTUS ruled that states can't say that a qualifying heterosexual couple can get married but a homosexual couple that meets the same qualifications can't get married because homophobia. That would be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the homosexual couple and the feds are responsible for enforcing the constitution.
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
Your Constitution (or similar document) says all of you are equal. With the first round of civil rights happened, many States showed they could not be counted on to follow the spirit of that law. It required the highest authority in the land (Feds/SCotUS) to get certain States to treat those citizens equally.
Now here we are again, and many of those same States are finding themselves afoul of the same spirit of the "all equal" law, and the Feds/SCotUS are having to step in again.
Actually we had to amend our constitution several times over a few centuries to get everybody covered. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal but that's not a federal law or statute or anything of the sort. It's the document that the colonies put together to declare their independence from England. When the Declaration of Independence was written and issued we still didn't have a govt or a constitution at all.
So it essentially boils down to a disagreement on the interpretation of what infringes life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? I guess I can understand that, it's similar to the disagreements on what infringes the 2nd amendment I suppose. Although I'm not sure I understand why the entire healthcare topic has been being managed at the top level too? As far as I'm aware every job I've ever worked has afforded healthcare, most with various coverage levels/options so why is that even a thing to debate or be discussed at that level?
Not exactly. The phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a federal law or document so it imposes no legal obligation of any kind on the federal govt. The federal govt and federal courts are obligated to enforce what is in the constitution like the 2nd amendment. The federal govt is involved in healthcare because there are federal agencies and programs that administer health insurance and health care, like the VA, medicare and Medicaid and because the federal govt has some constitutional obligations for regulating commerce and state actions.
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
Frazz, honest question: Are you straight, white, Christian, or male? Being any of those drastically changes how much effect Pence's positions will have on your life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Not exactly. The phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a federal law or document so it imposes no legal obligation of any kind on the federal govt. The federal govt and federal courts are obligated to enforce what is in the constitution like the 2nd amendment. The federal govt is involved in healthcare because there are federal agencies and programs that administer health insurance and health care, like the VA, medicare and Medicaid and because the federal govt has some constitutional obligations for regulating commerce and state actions.
Ah, Okay that clicked finally, I appreciate you clarifying for me. I don't know why it never occurred to me before to connect those dots.
Honestly outside of pure greed and corruption I can't figure out why we have privatized healthcare or why we still want ot. If there is one thing the state ahould he taking care of other than security and infrastructure, it is the health of the citizens of the state. Allowing private health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations to exist as profit first, care second was a huge mistake.
BrotherGecko wrote: Honestly outside of pure greed and corruption I can't figure out why we have privatized healthcare or why we still want ot. If there is one thing the state ahould he taking care of other than security and infrastructure, it is the health of the citizens of the state. Allowing private health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations to exist as profit first, care second was a huge mistake.
Coming from a Veterans personal opinion, you honestly don't want that. Anyone who has had to deal with anything like the Va will tell you I'm MUCH happier just going to a personal dr or what have you and paying my copay than dealing with any of the crap that is associated with the va. This is of course just my personal experience and opinion but I've yet to me a fellow vet who doesn't agree in some way or fashion.
On a more celebratory note. On this date, January 13th in 1794, George Washington authorized adding two stars to the flag following the admission of Kentucky and Vermont to the Union. Once again, our colonial fathers showed their wisdom, insight and prescience by securing our country a never-ending supply of maple syrup and bourbon!
BrotherGecko wrote: Honestly outside of pure greed and corruption I can't figure out why we have privatized healthcare or why we still want ot. If there is one thing the state ahould he taking care of other than security and infrastructure, it is the health of the citizens of the state. Allowing private health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations to exist as profit first, care second was a huge mistake.
Going to single-payor insurance model for all (ie, the Canadian Medicare) ought to be debated.
However, I'm dubious that nationalizing Pharma would help. If anything, maybe they need to be broken up (ie, Big Bell) and overhaul the patent system.
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
Frazz, honest question: Are you straight, white, Christian, or male? Being any of those drastically changes how much effect Pence's positions will have on your life.
I am the guy who told the daughter's friend they could stay here until they graduate and can find a job, if their parent kicked them out of the house for being who they are. And ?
Did Pence try to imprison gays or put them in mental facilities?
Thats a nightmare. If yes then we can agree if no, then your hyperventilating hurts your cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Honestly outside of pure greed and corruption I can't figure out why we have privatized healthcare or why we still want ot. If there is one thing the state ahould he taking care of other than security and infrastructure, it is the health of the citizens of the state. Allowing private health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations to exist as profit first, care second was a huge mistake.
Thats how medical care started. It wasn't privatized-it was not public-anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: On a more celebratory note. On this date, January 13th in 1794, George Washington authorized adding two stars to the flag following the admission of Kentucky and Vermont to the Union. Once again, our colonial fathers showed their wisdom, insight and prescience by securing our country a never-ending supply of maple syrup and bourbon!
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
The ACA is a mixed bag. It provided coverage to previously uncovered people but it really hasn't accomplished much of it's goal to reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare. Prior to the passage of the ACA we were told that insurance premiums are rising because the insured have to bear the cost of the uninsured using Emergency Rooms for medical care. Now, with the ACA in effect we're told that our insurance premiums are going up to cover the cost of govt subsidies for health insurance policies for the previously uninsured. Consequently we have millions of working Americans whose stagnate wages and rising health insurance premiums are leaving them with a dwindling income. Add in the fact that a lot of people now have health insurance plans that are worse than they were before the ACA even though they now cost more and the insurance companies blame it on the ACA (and its echoed by the HR stuff in the company I work for and I've heard the same from friends with different employers) and you get people angry at the ACA. The support for repealing the ACA that I've seen isn't rooted in people being venal, uncaring and self centered its rooted in the fact that it hasn't fixed the number one problem people have with health insurance, rising costs.
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
The ACA is a mixed bag. It provided coverage to previously uncovered people but it really hasn't accomplished much of it's goal to reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare. Prior to the passage of the ACA we were told that insurance premiums are rising because the insured have to bear the cost of the uninsured using Emergency Rooms for medical care. Now, with the ACA in effect we're told that our insurance premiums are going up to cover the cost of govt subsidies for health insurance policies for the previously uninsured. Consequently we have millions of working Americans whose stagnate wages and rising health insurance premiums are leaving them with a dwindling income. Add in the fact that a lot of people now have health insurance plans that are worse than they were before the ACA even though they now cost more and the insurance companies blame it on the ACA (and its echoed by the HR stuff in the company I work for and I've heard the same from friends with different employers) and you get people angry at the ACA. The support for repealing the ACA that I've seen isn't rooted in people being venal, uncaring and self centered its rooted in the fact that it hasn't fixed the number one problem people have with health insurance, rising costs.
And that rises from the republicans refusing to even want to pass the ACA so the dems had to compromise
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
The ACA is a mixed bag. It provided coverage to previously uncovered people but it really hasn't accomplished much of it's goal to reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare. Prior to the passage of the ACA we were told that insurance premiums are rising because the insured have to bear the cost of the uninsured using Emergency Rooms for medical care. Now, with the ACA in effect we're told that our insurance premiums are going up to cover the cost of govt subsidies for health insurance policies for the previously uninsured. Consequently we have millions of working Americans whose stagnate wages and rising health insurance premiums are leaving them with a dwindling income. Add in the fact that a lot of people now have health insurance plans that are worse than they were before the ACA even though they now cost more and the insurance companies blame it on the ACA (and its echoed by the HR stuff in the company I work for and I've heard the same from friends with different employers) and you get people angry at the ACA. The support for repealing the ACA that I've seen isn't rooted in people being venal, uncaring and self centered its rooted in the fact that it hasn't fixed the number one problem people have with health insurance, rising costs.
And that rises from the republicans refusing to even want to pass the ACA so the dems had to compromise
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
The ACA is a mixed bag. It provided coverage to previously uncovered people but it really hasn't accomplished much of it's goal to reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare. Prior to the passage of the ACA we were told that insurance premiums are rising because the insured have to bear the cost of the uninsured using Emergency Rooms for medical care. Now, with the ACA in effect we're told that our insurance premiums are going up to cover the cost of govt subsidies for health insurance policies for the previously uninsured. Consequently we have millions of working Americans whose stagnate wages and rising health insurance premiums are leaving them with a dwindling income. Add in the fact that a lot of people now have health insurance plans that are worse than they were before the ACA even though they now cost more and the insurance companies blame it on the ACA (and its echoed by the HR stuff in the company I work for and I've heard the same from friends with different employers) and you get people angry at the ACA. The support for repealing the ACA that I've seen isn't rooted in people being venal, uncaring and self centered its rooted in the fact that it hasn't fixed the number one problem people have with health insurance, rising costs.
And that rises from the republicans refusing to even want to pass the ACA so the dems had to compromise
I think we've gone down this rabbit hole before but the Democrats had enough votes to pass whatever they wanted[u]. If the AVA isn't exactly what the Democrats' ideal version of the bill was then its the fault of the Democrats because they wrote it and they passed it. The biggest opposition to the ACA the Democrats faced was the pro life group of Democrats in the House led by Bart Stupak. That's why there were two versions of the ACA, the Senate and House versions that had to be reconciled via reconciliation.
Health care[edit]
Main article: Stupak–Pitts Amendment
Stupak expressed a desire to support the 2009 health care reform bill put forth by President Obama,[12] but wanted restrictions on coverage for abortion.[13] Therefore, Stupak and Republican Congressman Joseph R. Pitts submitted an amendment known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit such payments. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was adopted by the House of Representatives, but a similar pro-life provision was defeated in the Senate version of the legislation (known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).[14] Stupak announced that he and several other Democratic representatives who supported health reform legislation but opposed abortion would not vote for the final version of the legislation unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was included.[15] The ensuing controversy made Stupak "perhaps the single most important rank-and-file House member in passing the bill."[1]
Abortion-rights advocates held a "Stop Stupak" rally on Capitol Hill in December 2009.[16] In the ensuing months, Stupak publicly stated that the pressure and opposition he received in regard to his abortion stance on the health reform legislation had caused him to unplug the phone at his house due to "obscene phone calls and threats" and had made his life a "living hell."[12][17] "My staff is overwhelmed and we're accosted basically wherever we go by people who disagree," Stupak added.[17]
In March 2010, President Obama and Stupak reached an understanding whereby the President promised to sign an Executive Order barring federal funding of abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,[18] and Stupak and several of his allies promised to withdraw their opposition to the bill.[19]
whembly wrote: ? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...
Who gives a feth what he does and doesn't sugar coat. What matters is what he delivers for people. And right now he and his party are working to repeal legislation that provides health insurance to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
A) they were elected largely over the repeal of the ACA
B) you're assuming that nothing will be done to help those in need. Methinks your blinders need some adjust'n.
You want me to remove the sugar coating? What King is saying and doing is fething disgraceful, and everyone who for him and his party needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
*picks up mirror*
Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.
*puts down mirror*
*raises eyebrow towards sebster*
Here's where I see the whole ACA argument distilled.
Ahem...
The country needed something like ACA. It has been an issue of importance for both parties going back as far as I remember. Basically, something that medically covers people where the traditional insurance gaps are.
A bill to address those problems, ACA, was drafted and passed when one party, in this case the Democrats, finally had the momentum and control to do so.
Due to the "suck it" attitude from the Dems towards the GOP with the way it was written and passed it became the lightning rod for the fringe right, aka Tea Party, and accordingly, was adopted as a platform target by the whole GOP.
Rather than do what should have been done with a huge piece of legislation such as ACA...which would have been to let it run, assess, observe, critique and adjust/amend as necessary in order to improve the law/system...said partisanship prevented the necessary refinement and revision which could have addressed many of the flaws.
Further GOP controlled state subterfuge only undermined the law's effectiveness and prospect for success further.
The inherent flaws within the laws, which had no chance at this point to be addressed or corrected, starting weighing on the program.
So here we are now, tens of millions of people insured under ACA with the country enjoying the highest rate of medical coverage ever, personal bankruptcy due to medical catastrophes no longer the #1 cause of said bankruptcy in the US, inner city hospitals no longer closing due to getting crushed with bearing the burden to cover treatment of uninsured patients and, most importantly, having a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're fethed from an insurance point of view. But, the law does have serious flaws.
Which brings us to today. The GOP now has the reins. They've been symbolically voting to repeal ACA for the better part of 8 years. They've said it's going to destroy us and that they have a better plan. Well, you've now got the reins Mr. Trump et al, so it's time to walk the walk. Certainly after 8 years of throwing rocks from the cheap seats you've had enough time to draft up something really sterling and much better for the citizens of this country.
If after all the derision, it's just going to be repeal and wait, then I say bullgak! If there's any actual interest in improving the current offering then it must be repeal and replace/revise. Otherwise the entire repeal exercise and outrage of the last 8 years will be shown to have been nothing but the partisan facade that many on the left believe it to be. Only time and what actual action come from the administration will tell at this point.
Pretty much.
The repeal is coming. It's going to be repealed the same way it was passed (ie, via budget reconciliation). But, that only impacts the mandate and any regulation concerning taxation and budgetary. It'll be a hollowed out husk, with still many laws on books impacting the industry (ie, insurance reg, insurance plans requirements, etc...).
As for what comes after that... it remains to be seen if Senate Democrats would play ball with a FULL repeal and replacement... because, GOP Senate absolute needs at least 8 Democrat Senators to sign onto any bills.
The ACA is a mixed bag. It provided coverage to previously uncovered people but it really hasn't accomplished much of it's goal to reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare. Prior to the passage of the ACA we were told that insurance premiums are rising because the insured have to bear the cost of the uninsured using Emergency Rooms for medical care. Now, with the ACA in effect we're told that our insurance premiums are going up to cover the cost of govt subsidies for health insurance policies for the previously uninsured. Consequently we have millions of working Americans whose stagnate wages and rising health insurance premiums are leaving them with a dwindling income. Add in the fact that a lot of people now have health insurance plans that are worse than they were before the ACA even though they now cost more and the insurance companies blame it on the ACA (and its echoed by the HR stuff in the company I work for and I've heard the same from friends with different employers) and you get people angry at the ACA. The support for repealing the ACA that I've seen isn't rooted in people being venal, uncaring and self centered its rooted in the fact that it hasn't fixed the number one problem people have with health insurance, rising costs.
And that rises from the republicans refusing to even want to pass the ACA so the dems had to compromise
naxium wrote: So in all sincerity I have a question about a viewpoint I've had for as long as I can remember that I'd really appreciate insight on, this isn't a jab or meant as anything negative or offensive but my lack of knowledge on the history of the subject.
Why are things such as lgbt, marriage, abortions, bathroom use and other similar subjects even a debate or topic on the federal/presidential level? I was always under the (probably wrong from the looks of it) belief that when the fed govt was established those things were never even supposed to be within its scope of control/power? Aren't they supposed to be matters handled at the local or state level? I appreciate any clarification or light that's shed on this.
You're reading of life is correct prior to the ACW. That fundamentally changed the relationship.
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
Frazz, honest question: Are you straight, white, Christian, or male? Being any of those drastically changes how much effect Pence's positions will have on your life.
I am the guy who told the daughter's friend they could stay here until they graduate and can find a job, if their parent kicked them out of the house for being who they are. And ?
Did Pence try to imprison gays or put them in mental facilities? Thats a nightmare. If yes then we can agree if no, then your hyperventilating hurts your cause.
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
Frazz, honest question: Are you straight, white, Christian, or male? Being any of those drastically changes how much effect Pence's positions will have on your life.
I am the guy who told the daughter's friend they could stay here until they graduate and can find a job, if their parent kicked them out of the house for being who they are. And ?
Did Pence try to imprison gays or put them in mental facilities?
Pence: -Voted to increase sentences for drug offenders, including marijuana -Is against Climate Change policies across the board -Believes in the Patriot Act -Supported Arizona's strictest anti-illegal immigration policies -Believes smoking cigarettes doesn't kill -Opposes LGBTQ discrimination rights -Opposes LGBTQ in the military and same-sex marriage, while approving of conversion therapy -Wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes sex education, and wants to return Roe v. Wade to "the pile of ashes it belongs in"
The guy wants to take us back to the white Christian America of the 1950's, but sure, I'm overreacting.
Also, your anecdote is great, Frazz. Yeah, it's great you did that for her, too bad Pence is trying to destroy any chance of happiness she could have.
There's a substantial portion of the conservative/Republican party that is anti-lgbtq, so for them Pence is the second coming of Christ. I have a bunch of friends who are conservatives/Republicans, but pretty much as soon as starts talking about how much they like Pence, I immediately lose respect for them. The guy is a walking pro-choice/gay rights nightmare.
There's the problem, hence the different level of volume. We have a different standard for nightmare.
Frazz, honest question: Are you straight, white, Christian, or male? Being any of those drastically changes how much effect Pence's positions will have on your life.
I am the guy who told the daughter's friend they could stay here until they graduate and can find a job, if their parent kicked them out of the house for being who they are. And ?
Did Pence try to imprison gays or put them in mental facilities? Thats a nightmare. If yes then we can agree if no, then your hyperventilating hurts your cause.
@frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
Still believe that?
No, no you don't. The only reason we have a gakstain as a president elect is because Biden was a human being with emotions and self requirements as to what it means to be a president and he knew his limitations at that moment. He had all the positives people saw with Trump (for the working middle class, tells it like it is, doesn't care about language--except his are true and not self serving) and none of the hinderances of Clinton (email, disregard of law, humanity, boobs). He would have had the Bernie crowd and the base. He would have had fence sitters. He would have had Whembly. He is someone who deserves every award we can fit around his neck. He cares about you, even though you don't care about him. If you don't think that, again, I suggest you read more about him.
It might have been a humorous post like you like to write, and which all of us appreciate now and again to take the heat off of this forum, but it was an ill informed one.
And if, after having learned about the man, and you still don't see it, just watch the award ceremony. He understands what this country means and what it means to serve it.
Voted to increase sentences for drug offenders, including marijuana
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? Some better tell the Clintons. How does that even relate?
-Is against Climate Change policies across the board
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes in the Patriot Act
***I guess we better burn Obama and Biden at the state and shoot Hillary then I mean she did vote for it and they enacted it.
-Supported Arizona's strictest anti-illegal immigration policies
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes smoking cigarettes doesn't kill
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Opposes LGBTQ discrimination rights
***You’ll have to be way more specific.
-Opposes LGBTQ in the military and same-sex marriage,
***Now you’re getting somewhere. That doesn’t make him a Nazi though. That makes him 2008 Obama
while approving of conversion therapy
***I do not know the details of his involvement (he is a Yankee after all) but from little info I know of the practice itself, yea that’s officially fethed up.
-Wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes sex education, and wants to return Roe v. Wade to "the pile of ashes it belongs in"
***PP is sucking off the government tit and has no place getting money especially after ACA was supposed to free us at last. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Sex education. I don’t know the details. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Roe V. Wade was terrible law made of whole cloth. Here’s the fun part. Under Roe V. Wade once “viability” is established (up to conception) then abortion can be illegal. Uh oh… That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
You're not where you are because of people doing their jobs in congress for their whole life. You are where you are because of people spending their whole lives in congress grandstanding and obstructing rather than governing.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
Frazzled wrote: Voted to increase sentences for drug offenders, including marijuana
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? Some better tell the Clintons. How does that even relate?
-Is against Climate Change policies across the board
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes in the Patriot Act
***I guess we better burn Obama and Biden at the state and shoot Hillary then I mean she did vote for it and they enacted it.
-Supported Arizona's strictest anti-illegal immigration policies
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes smoking cigarettes doesn't kill
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Opposes LGBTQ discrimination rights
***You’ll have to be way more specific.
-Opposes LGBTQ in the military and same-sex marriage,
***Now you’re getting somewhere. That doesn’t make him a Nazi though. That makes him 2008 Obama
while approving of conversion therapy
***I do not know the details of his involvement (he is a Yankee after all) but from little info I know of the practice itself, yea that’s officially fethed up.
-Wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes sex education, and wants to return Roe v. Wade to "the pile of ashes it belongs in"
***PP is sucking off the government tit and has no place getting money especially after ACA was supposed to free us at last. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Sex education. I don’t know the details. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Roe V. Wade was terrible law made of whole cloth. Here’s the fun part. Under Roe V. Wade once “viability” is established (up to conception) then abortion can be illegal. Uh oh… That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
Not once did I saw he was a Nazi, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I just said that he was a nightmare for non-straight, white, Christian males. But keep painting with that broad brush. Also, I'm saying the rest of his policies are just as bullgak pro-1950's America as he is.
Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
Stevefamine wrote: Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
Is there a high incidence of any other crimes in the area besides pot smoking? The mere act of smoking marijuana really doesn't negatively impact anyone. People should be free to smoke or not smoke marijuana as they choose its pretty pathetic that we've criminalized smoking marijuana.
Frazzled wrote: No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
The fact that there are awful career politicians is a fault of the voters, not the fact that career politicians exist.
This obsession some people have with only wanting amateurs or part timers to run government is bizarre.
It isn't only bizarre, it is unobserved. Note Whembly's total misunderstanding of the political cartoon a few pages back. He isn't dumb. Consider what the dumb people think.
Stevefamine wrote: Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
Then lets ban cigarette smokers and send all the people that produce, manufacture, and buy it to jail
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
You call it public service like its a good thing. I call being a sleazy politician.
Stevefamine wrote: Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
Then lets ban cigarette smokers and send all the people that produce, manufacture, and buy it to jail
From my cold (because of vascular retraction) dead (because of lung cancer) hands (covered in tar). I still smoke.
Frazzled wrote: Voted to increase sentences for drug offenders, including marijuana
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? Some better tell the Clintons. How does that even relate?
-Is against Climate Change policies across the board
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes in the Patriot Act
***I guess we better burn Obama and Biden at the state and shoot Hillary then I mean she did vote for it and they enacted it.
-Supported Arizona's strictest anti-illegal immigration policies
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes smoking cigarettes doesn't kill
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Opposes LGBTQ discrimination rights
***You’ll have to be way more specific.
-Opposes LGBTQ in the military and same-sex marriage,
***Now you’re getting somewhere. That doesn’t make him a Nazi though. That makes him 2008 Obama
while approving of conversion therapy
***I do not know the details of his involvement (he is a Yankee after all) but from little info I know of the practice itself, yea that’s officially fethed up.
-Wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes sex education, and wants to return Roe v. Wade to "the pile of ashes it belongs in"
***PP is sucking off the government tit and has no place getting money especially after ACA was supposed to free us at last. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Sex education. I don’t know the details. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Roe V. Wade was terrible law made of whole cloth. Here’s the fun part. Under Roe V. Wade once “viability” is established (up to conception) then abortion can be illegal. Uh oh… That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
Not once did I saw he was a Nazi, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I just said that he was a nightmare for non-straight, white, Christian males. But keep painting with that broad brush. Also, I'm saying the rest of his policies are just as bullgak pro-1950's America as he is.
P.S. pretty clear he hates the LGBTQ crowd,
Fine, switch it from Nazi to nightmare. 3/4 of those still have nothing to do with LGBTQ, and as noted would be standard playbook against any R politician (indeed against HRC).
Frazzled wrote: Voted to increase sentences for drug offenders, including marijuana
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? Some better tell the Clintons. How does that even relate?
-Is against Climate Change policies across the board
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes in the Patriot Act
***I guess we better burn Obama and Biden at the state and shoot Hillary then I mean she did vote for it and they enacted it.
-Supported Arizona's strictest anti-illegal immigration policies
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Believes smoking cigarettes doesn't kill
***That makes you a LBGTQ hating Nazi? How does that even relate?
-Opposes LGBTQ discrimination rights
***You’ll have to be way more specific.
-Opposes LGBTQ in the military and same-sex marriage,
***Now you’re getting somewhere. That doesn’t make him a Nazi though. That makes him 2008 Obama
while approving of conversion therapy
***I do not know the details of his involvement (he is a Yankee after all) but from little info I know of the practice itself, yea that’s officially fethed up.
-Wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes sex education, and wants to return Roe v. Wade to "the pile of ashes it belongs in"
***PP is sucking off the government tit and has no place getting money especially after ACA was supposed to free us at last. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Sex education. I don’t know the details. That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
***Roe V. Wade was terrible law made of whole cloth. Here’s the fun part. Under Roe V. Wade once “viability” is established (up to conception) then abortion can be illegal. Uh oh… That doesn’t make him an LGBTX hating Nazi though.
Not once did I saw he was a Nazi, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I just said that he was a nightmare for non-straight, white, Christian males. But keep painting with that broad brush. Also, I'm saying the rest of his policies are just as bullgak pro-1950's America as he is.
P.S. pretty clear he hates the LGBTQ crowd,
Fine, switch it from Nazi to nightmare. 3/4 of those still have nothing to do with LGBTQ, and as noted would be standard playbook against any R politician (indeed against HRC).
Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stevefamine wrote: Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
So, marijuana is bad, but alcohol/mental health issues/cigarettes totally okay? You have an interesting set of priorities.
Stevefamine wrote: Looking to move into a specific area of Philadelphia - local parks are cracking down on marijuana issues in the local area. Dealers/hippies/hobos are always an issue in cities. I smell marijuana every-time I'm at the park a block away from where I want to live. It really needs to stop.
I'm glad Sessions can crack down and shut the slow creep of legalization. I want it to stay our of the NY/NJ for at least another 20~ years.
Then lets ban cigarette smokers and send all the people that produce, manufacture, and buy it to jail
From my cold (because of vascular retraction) dead (because of lung cancer) hands (covered in tar). I still smoke.
From hells smoke filled black heart I stab at thee
Gordon Shumway wrote: I guess you don't understand what the point of public service is then.
Given the elitist attitudes displayed by of many of our Senators, I'm thinking more than a few don't understand the point of public service either.
BTW, I'm actually not taking a shot at Biden here, just making a comment about Senators in general.
And given the truth of that observation, it only makes Biden that much more deserving of his award. I could name half a dozen Senators off the top of my head that I wouldn't take for one Biden.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
You call it public service like its a good thing. I call being a sleazy politician.
And therein lies the problem. If our govt, is of, by and for the people, it should probably be made up of by the people. The right seems to think that the govt. is some sort of existential, out there, removed threat. Nope. We are it. Sorry. You sort of have a say and responsibility in the matter. Don't like it, fine, speak up. Like it, fine, speak up. To pretend otherwise is just absconding you own responsibilities in the matter. That is what makes an authoritative human like Trump so appealing to so many--lots of hard decisions, make them up for me.
If you view public service as just sleazy politicians making up rules you have to follow, then you aren't playing the game as the rules were set up. You sort of lost before you had a chance to throw the die. At least take the opportunity to throw those die. They are rounded and won't cut you too deeply. They might be loaded as well. That is why we trust you are there throwing them and checking them. Without you, we are well and truly fethed.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
You call it public service like its a good thing. I call being a sleazy politician.
And therein lies the problem. If our govt, is of, by and for the people, it should probably be made up of by the people. The right seems to think that the govt. is some sort of existential, out there, removed threat. Nope. We are it. Sorry. You sort of have a say and responsibility in the matter. Don't like it, fine, speak up. Like it, fine, speak up. To pretend otherwise is just absconding you own responsibilities in the matter. That is what makes an authoritative human like Trump so appealing to so many--lots of hard decisions, make them up for me.
If you view public service as just sleazy politicians making up rules you have to follow, then you aren't playing the game as the rules were set up. You sort of lost before you had a chance to throw the die. At least take the opportunity to throw those die. They are rounded and won't cut you too deeply. They might be loaded as well. That is why we trust you are there throwing them and checking them. Without you, we are well and truly fethed.
"The right seems..."?
Well... lemme stop you here and elucidate.
THESE politicians work for US!
They're not royalty, experts or deserving of worship or deference.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
You call it public service like its a good thing. I call being a sleazy politician.
And therein lies the problem. If our govt, is of, by and for the people, it should probably be made up of by the people. The right seems to think that the govt. is some sort of existential, out there, removed threat. Nope. We are it. Sorry. You sort of have a say and responsibility in the matter. Don't like it, fine, speak up. Like it, fine, speak up. To pretend otherwise is just absconding you own responsibilities in the matter. That is what makes an authoritative human like Trump so appealing to so many--lots of hard decisions, make them up for me.
If you view public service as just sleazy politicians making up rules you have to follow, then you aren't playing the game as the rules were set up. You sort of lost before you had a chance to throw the die. At least take the opportunity to throw those die. They are rounded and won't cut you too deeply. They might be loaded as well. That is why we trust you are there throwing them and checking them. Without you, we are well and truly fethed.
"The right seems..."?
Well... lemme stop you here and elucidate.
THESE politicians work for US!
They're not royalty, experts or deserving of worship or deference.
Simply stated. We're the boss, so act like it.
Let me stop you, these politicians are us. Biden never forgot that. Or to put it another way, we are, or should be the politicians. Nothing is stopping you from organizing a group to get recognition. We are the boss, not like you think in that we have control over them, but in the literal sense. It's not "these politicians work for us" it's these politicians are us. We are the govt.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @frazz: are you saying (I'm pretty sure, but I don't want to presume) that Obama shouldn't have given the medal to Biden or that Biden didn't deserve the medal for his service? If there is anybody who is alive that deserves that medal, it is Biden. Look up the medal's purpose. Look up what Biden has done in his long career (mostly in the senate). I'll wait.
I'm saying he has been an excellent Senator and a career long politician. You shouldn't get a special award for that though. If thats the criteria 1) its stupid; 2) there a whole lot of godawful politicians that deserve it too. Better they all get kicked out of office. No one should spend their lifetimes in Congress. thats why we are where we are.
I guess you don't understand what the point or benefit of public service is then. We are where we are right now for a lot of reasons, one of which is people don't understand or appreciate public service, including, often times the sevants themselves. Another of which is some public servants still do. Biden is one of the latter. He made some money as a senator, yup. More than he would have made in the private sphere? Nope.
You call it public service like its a good thing. I call being a sleazy politician.
And therein lies the problem. If our govt, is of, by and for the people, it should probably be made up of by the people. The right seems to think that the govt. is some sort of existential, out there, removed threat. Nope. We are it. Sorry. You sort of have a say and responsibility in the matter. Don't like it, fine, speak up. Like it, fine, speak up. To pretend otherwise is just absconding you own responsibilities in the matter. That is what makes an authoritative human like Trump so appealing to so many--lots of hard decisions, make them up for me.
If you view public service as just sleazy politicians making up rules you have to follow, then you aren't playing the game as the rules were set up. You sort of lost before you had a chance to throw the die. At least take the opportunity to throw those die. They are rounded and won't cut you too deeply. They might be loaded as well. That is why we trust you are there throwing them and checking them. Without you, we are well and truly fethed.
"The right seems..."?
Well... lemme stop you here and elucidate.
THESE politicians work for US!
They're not royalty, experts or deserving of worship or deference.
Simply stated. We're the boss, so act like it.
Let me stop you, these politicians are us. Biden never forgot that. Or to put it another way, we are, or should be the politicians. Nothing is stopping you from organizing a group to get recognition. We are the boss, not like you think in that we have control over them, but in the literal sense. It's not "these politicians work for us" it's these politicians are us. We are the govt.
In the literal sense, you are correct.
However, in practical terms, it's not treated as a "civil service" as you have to be a known quantity before you can even get elected. As such, it's a career platform, rather than an endeavor to "pause your life for the good of your country" thing...
Furthermore, I don't mind Obama granting that medal to Biden, as he can do whatever he wants with that.
My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
In the literal sense is the only sense that makes sense to me. Are some people dissuaded into performing it because it is a hassle and isn't regularly recognized? Sure, which is why I take Frazz's dismissal to heart.
In practical terms it is a hinderance,mwhich is why we should laud, not poo poo it. Being a known quantity is a matter of you yourself making yourself known. Money is an obstacle, but not impossible to overcome. We have op pages in neswspapers--they after the cost of a stamp. We have the right to speak in our city or state legislatures--free with the cost of a fare ride to get there. We have social media, which our current president elect has so graciously provided as an example of how not to use as a campaign platform. (Though how effective it is at getting out supporters). We have no reason, with the tools and resources at our disposal, not to be our own government (the way it was intended) other than laziness and the possible excuse of deniability. It is my own fault I do not participate and engage more. What we do not need is some posters who evidently have not thought it through, even though they have had many years to do so, outright saying that civil service is not to be applauded. It is to be applauded, and thank you, Biden.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
There's a important distinction between a business refusing to provide a service they don't provide to anyone (Hindus refusing to serve beef) and a business refusing to provide a routine service to specific persons (Xtian refusing to cater gay wedding).
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
That's a good point. They'd have to slaughter it themselves to make it halal though.
Regardless, the Hindu restaurant could not be compelled to provide a service they don't normally do.
This is distinctly different from a business refusing to provide a service that they do normally do to specific persons.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Still holds up.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
There's a important distinction between a business refusing to provide a service they don't provide to anyone (Hindus refusing to serve beef) and a business refusing to provide a routine service to specific persons (Xtian refusing to cater gay wedding).
There is a difference between serving someone at a restaurant and having your catering service's logo plastered all over an event that you personally have issues with, AND that your religion has issues with. You may not like it, but it IS their belief. And catering is typically a "by contract" service, is it not? So it would also be exempt.
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
It is, I went to India and had a nice steak at a steak house.
Now is this the christian run buisness that put the L's information online and the christian hate mob harassed them for weeks? That's why they got sued and ended up getting out of the buisness. Yes people are free to practice their religion as hateful bigots, it is america after all, but do those beliefs need to be defended? oh heck no!
Your business doesn't go to heaven, so it shouldn't be able to refuse based on a religion that doesn't apply to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit:
This same topic has been talked about for years now on this forum, so I'm just going to drop it. My stance is well known on this, so no point getting worked up about it.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Well, to be fair, had he actually watched the award ceremony, he would have seen that Biden totally agreed with him. Too bad he couldn't be bothered to watch it. For once that soapbox emoticon gif wasn't used ironically, though the poster will never understand it because of preconceived perceptions.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
Eeyore of a comment? That's quite something given your responses.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Cynicism is surrender and hate. Full stop. You might think it means the same as criticism, but you would be wrong. Cynicism is a form of easy nievete.
Cynicism is a tendency to distrust people's motives. It has nothing to do with surrender or hate or criticism or naiveté. Holy cow, people, buy a freaking dictionary.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Bad people? Dafuk? Cynicism I'll grant but broken, surrender and hate? Seriously? I think you're train is rolling slightly off the rails here.
Dude, after that Eeyore of a comment of yours, you've got nothing to stand on with regards to declaring someone as being "off the rails".
Eeyore of a comment? That's quite something given your responses.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Cynicism is surrender and hate. Full stop. You might think it means the same as criticism, but you would be wrong. Cynicism is a form of easy nievete.
Cynicism is a tendency to distrust people's motives. It has nothing to do with surrender or hate or criticism or naiveté. Holy cow, people, buy a freaking dictionary.
Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
There is no such thing as healthy cynicism. That is criticism. Cynicism comes as an easy form of being ignorant about a given topic. Add humour and it is sarcasm. Ask a teen to opine about any gven topic that they don't understand yet hate. That is what it is.
Being critical is something different. It demands knowledge about the problem and allows for a possible solution. It is why in college I attempt to teach critical thinking, not cynical thinking.
It might seem like a pendantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one. We have lots of difficult problems in our society. Cynicism will not solve any of them. Criticism might, but it takes work.
BigWaaagh wrote: Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
My comment was fairly tame compared to some of the stuff people have unloaded against Trump in this (and the previous) thread but nobody flipped out then, did they? So if seeing a soapbox icon causes you to start tossing molotov cocktails, expect to be called out on it.
As for defining cynicism, when people apply terms like broken, hate, surrender, and naiveté to the word, I really do think there is need for a dictionary.
BigWaaagh wrote: Responses to your posts of just blunderbuss accuracy, yes.
As far as cynicism is concerned, there's a healthy cynicism that questions certain things in general and then there's the economy-size brush you painted with in your post, hence the response. Dictionary not necessary.
My comment was fairly tame compared to some of the stuff people have unloaded against Trump in this (and the previous) thread but nobody flipped out then, did they? So if seeing a soapbox icon causes you to start tossing molotov cocktails, expect to be called out on it.
As for defining cynicism, when people apply terms like broken, hate, surrender, and naiveté to the word, I really do think there is need for a dictionary.
That would almost be an argument if it wasn't so wrong. Firstly, don't deflect to Trump comments, that alone is telling me you've got no defense for your position. Stay on topic and I don't care a bit if you use every Orkmoticon available, but when you just take a shotgun approach to commenting on, or insulting, something, i.e. turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into a "feth 'em all" diatribe, then there's going to be some questioning of the motive behind it.
As I stated, be cynical, fine. Unload that cynicism like a hand grenade, as you're want to do, then the validity of the post and, by extension, the poster becomes suspect. And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
So let me get this right, in one response you say, "You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President." and also say " My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it." The word salad and attempt at a train of thought is amazing.
Also, showing something relative to it's actual definition is hardly a "strawman". Maybe you're the one in need of a dictionary for that term.
BigWaaagh wrote: ...turning Biden's receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom into...
You mean the President's awarding of it, don't you? Biden had nothing to do with it. Oh, wait. That's what's got your underoos all in a bunch, isn't it? You believe my comments were directed toward Biden instead of the President.
BigWaaagh wrote: And just to play out your game:Cynicism: An inclination to believe people are motivated purely by self interest. Yeah, it's always self interest that guides the awarding of the PMOF...and that broken view of things just brings us back to where we started and kind of bears out my observation, doesn't it?
I've provided a definition to show exactly what I meant. Changing it to something else is a strawman argument.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It might seem like a pedantic and semantic distinction, but it is an important one.
All right then, let's express this in a pedantic and semantically distinct way so that all might understand.
One moment, let me get my top hat and monocle.
Okay. *ahem* I am cynical (disparaging the motives of others) about why this award was given. My criticism (expression of disapproval) is that it is unseemly now and was just as unseemly back when previous Presidents did it. I provided Kaddafi and his comically cartoonish ribbon rack as an analogy (resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike) to indicate the degree of unseemliness that I feel giving this award represents. My only comment about or toward Biden is that I felt he didn't deserve it.
Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?). As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?).
You previously positioned yourself to be a proponent of critical thought and yet you open with base trolling. That's definitely bad form in a debate.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
Circular logic? As in "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."? I'm honestly not sure how that applies. I made a statement that I was cynical of motives, critical of how the of awarding this medal appears, and included a comparison as part of that criticism. Please graph the circle for me without editing what I wrote into your own version of what I wrote.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Your attempt at anti-intellectual reflective humor would be funny if it weren't so common among others. As it is, it's just sad. TV sitcoms and college freshmen do it better. I realize Twitter speak is all the rage, but would you really prefer I dumb down the words instead? Nah, I prefer to use the most accurate words possible and am going to assume you are educated and mature enough to handle them without having to belittle someone who uses them (maybe a bad assumption on my part?).
You previously positioned yourself to be a proponent of critical thought and yet you open with base trolling. That's definitely bad form in a debate.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As to the rest, well the circular and contradictory logic sort of speaks for itself. That is the problem with cynicism. It is a self defeating position to argue from. Sort of like being an adamant nihilist.
Circular logic? As in "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."? I'm honestly not sure how that applies. I made a statement that I was cynical of motives, critical of how the of awarding this medal appears, and included a comparison as part of that criticism. Please graph the circle for me without editing what I wrote into your own version of what I wrote.
Base trolling? I thought I was the one being trolled with the whole "ahem" and monocle routine. I was just responding without attempting to hide behind sarcasm or snark at all. I wasn't attempting to troll, merely clearly point out my distain of your position. As to the circular logic, the above poster laid it out pretty clearly in words. You are smart enough not to need a graph. And at this point, let us be done with this conversation as we are well and truly off topic. If you want the last word, I'll let you have it, just PM it to me.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And at this point, let us be done with this conversation as we are well and truly off topic.
Agreed.
And in that vein, the Commanding General of the Washington D.C. National Guard will end his service in the middle of the inauguration according to the Washington Post.
I know Trump is removing all previous appointments (or more properly not extending them until he can fill the post) and Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz is disappointed he won't be able to finish the job as he won't have that job at 12:01 but could this have been avoided?
First, I think having posts vacate in the middle of the day is just plain silly. There's really no reason it couldn't have been done at midnight EST. On the other hand, I'm not seeing any deliberate insult either. I do see this as just one more example of shortsightedness on the part of Trump and his people and that's unfortunate.
I expect conspiracy theorists will claim that this is a slight on the part of Donald Trump and/or his staff while others will say it may just be an oversight. Personally, I didn't even know D.C. had a National Guard as it isn't a State. So, before the commentators and pundits tear into this and chum the waters, what do you guys think?
jreilly89 wrote: Hence why I typically don't vote Republic. Besides, the difference is Pence is cavalier and zealous enough to be able to actually accomplish some of these policies. Look at what he did to his own state.
You mean the part where he went to bat to defend peoples' religious beliefs from assault? And the law defends ALL religious beliefs. So you can't sue the local Indian restaurant for refusing to cater to your local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. Same principle, but since the incident that kicked it off was an LGBTQA couple and a Christian run business, obviously the Christians need to be destroyed and anyone who tries to defend them is Hitler.
For the record, I AM atheist (Well, practice the Kolinahr discipline, but splitting hairs for the leyman) and pro LGBTQA rights, but also acknowledge the right of citizens to practice their religion and live by their beliefs.
Pretty sure the Indian restaurant couldn't legally refuse to cater the local beef slaughterhouse company picnic. The catering still wouldn't include any beef on the menu, though.
That depends on whether the Indians are Hindu. Islam is the second largest religion in India, so Beef could still be on the menu.
It is, I went to India and had a nice steak at a steak house.
Now is this the christian run buisness that put the L's information online and the christian hate mob harassed them for weeks? That's why they got sued and ended up getting out of the buisness. Yes people are free to practice their religion as hateful bigots, it is america after all, but do those beliefs need to be defended? oh heck no!
I believe the pizza parlor that was the source of the Indiana law is still open. Now the bakery in Iowa or wherever it was that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding? They got closed down by boycotting and harassment.
So, marijuana is bad, but alcohol/mental health issues/cigarettes totally okay? You have an interesting set of priorities.
So because bad thing was stupidly allowed in the past new stupid things should be allowed? Alas removing given rights is harder than not giving new right so they are not equal
reds8n wrote: That would be the in reference to the tweet in which Trump advertised a lobster restaurant in Maine by mistake right ?
Nope. He tweeted an actual honest to god endorsement of LL Bean the other day.
He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech because organizations were demanding a boycott of the company and that LL Bean fire one of the 50+ Bean family owners because she donated money to Trump's campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post: First you guys agree that most politicians aren't worth much:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I guess you don't understand what the point of public service is then.
Given the elitist attitudes displayed by of many of our Senators, I'm thinking more than a few don't understand the point of public service either.
BTW, I'm actually not taking a shot at Biden here, just making a comment about Senators in general.
And given the truth of that observation, it only makes Biden that much more deserving of his award. I could name half a dozen Senators off the top of my head that I wouldn't take for one Biden.
Then a further clarification that Breotan believes (paraphrasing here) that the people should expect a VP or senator to execute their job responsibilities in a professional manner and actually doing so shouldn't be so rare and noteworthy as to be deserving of a presidential commendation and it's misinterpreted as a blanket statement that all politicians are scum.
Breotan wrote: My opinion on this whole Biden thing is that he didn't deserve it and the President shouldn't have awarded it. I hold this belief for all previous Presidents who gave the award to the Vice Presidents who served under them. Serving as the President or Vice President of the USA is its own reward - there shouldn't be a medal for it.
Our top officials giving each other awards like this stinks of tin pot nation stuff like Kaddafi who had a ton of awards on his chest, all of which he gave himself.
I don't care which party does it or to whom or for how long it's been going on. It's unbecoming of the office.
Yes, they're all bad people, doing bad things for bad reasons... Really? No distinguishment at all? Just feth 'em all?! Wow! This level of boilerplate "I'm broken, surrender and just hate everything" cynicism, is just kind of pathetic. I take that back, it's a lot of pathetic.
Then you guys go on for several more posts back and forth because even though it's 2017 already and social attitudes have changed you guys don't want to just admit you're totally into each other and enjoy chatting each other up because you want to play hard to get and pretend that you don't really enjoy the discussion you insist on propagating because the other guy has political cooties. It's ok guys we're all here for you, there's a lot of love in the room, embrace it.
Excellent Trump appointment for Secretary of Homeland Security, General John Kelly & I discuss border security with my wall model on table.
.. we have two options here :
The whole Stonehenge bit from Spinal Tap or the more recent school bit from Zoolander
"Donald gave me a drawing that said 18 inches. Now, whether or not he knows the difference between feet and inches is not my problem. I do what I'm told."
On a side note :
poor quality modelling really eh ? No layering or detail in the weathering effect. No scenic base either & the wire is woefully out of scale.
Trump's inauguration seems to become a disaster with all those ''prominent'' people invited especially from music, film and whatnot. A president to forget.
Excellent Trump appointment for Secretary of Homeland Security, General John Kelly & I discuss border security with my wall model on table.
Spoiler:
.. we have two options here :
The whole Stonehenge bit from Spinal Tap or the more recent school bit from Zoolander
"Donald gave me a drawing that said 18 inches. Now, whether or not he knows the difference between feet and inches is not my problem. I do what I'm told."
On a side note :
poor quality modelling really eh ? No layering or detail in the weathering effect. No scenic base either & the wire is woefully out of scale.
..well.. one assumes anyway.
I mentioned that guy earlier in the thread. He's the one who has said that he wants a literal no man's land on the border, with the one big wall and fences on each side to establish that no man's land.
And, yeah, that is a rather poorly made terrain piece. But I'm betting he's not a gamer.
Prestor Jon wrote: He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech because organizations were demanding a boycott of the company and that LL Bean fire one of the 50+ Bean family owners because she donated money to Trump's campaign.
Demanding a boycott and calling for firings is exercising one's freedom of speech. Trump, as a defender of freedom of speech, should be praising their actions.
I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
Now, now, don't underestimate the guy, give him a chance. If anyone can pull that off it's trump.
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
Now, now, don't underestimate the guy, give him a chance. If anyone can pull that off it's trump.
You're probably right. As I stated a while back, I'd really hate to be this guy's Press Secretary.
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
Remember how he offered someone (Kasich was it?) foreign and domestic affairs as VP? Trump doesn't want to do the work of being president, he just wants the prestige and adoring crowds that come with the job. I'm sure he will find plenty of time for tweeting.
Donald Trump appoints a Cybersecurity Advisor whose own site is damn vulnerable
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has been appointed as a cyber security advisor for the President-elect Donald Trump, but it appears that he never actually checked the security defenses of his own company's website.
Giuliani is going to head a new Cybersecurity Working group for the President-elect, and "will be sharing his expertise and insight as a trusted friend concerning private sector cyber security problems and emerging solutions developing in the private sector," the Trump's Transition Team announced Thursday.
Trump administration has appointed Giuliani after citing his 16 years of experience "providing security solutions in the private sector," but the news met online criticism with many users on Twitter asking:
'What does the former New York mayor know about cyber security?'
As the news broke, online users started scanning his website "www.giulianisecurity.com" and found that the site for Giuliani Security & Safety is simply a disaster.
The site runs on an old version of Joomla! — a free, open-source content management system (CMS) — which is vulnerable to more than a dozen flaws.
The website also uses an outdated version of the script language PHP, uses an expired SSL certificate, runs over a 10-year-old version of FreeBSD OS server and even fails to follow other basic security practices.
According to Robert Graham of Errata Security, Giuliani did not build the site himself; instead he "contracted with some generic web designer to put up a simple page with just some basic content."
"There's nothing on Giuliani's server worth hacking. The drama over his security, while an amazing joke, is actually meaningless," Graham said in a blog post. "All this tells us is that Verio/NTT.net is a crappy hosting provider, not that Giuliani has done anything wrong."
Although it really doesn't matter who has created the website, if you are in cyber security business to "help the government plan to make us more secure," such ignorance hardly inspires confidence in the expertise of that person.
Giuliani is the CEO of his own private-sector cybersecurity venture, Giuliani Partners, which is an international cyber security consulting firm that claims to offer "a comprehensive range of security and crisis management services."
What Giuliani Partners actually does is not known, because the company promotes its crime reduction successes in countries, but not its cybersecurity work.
The venture recently struck a deal with BlackBerry to provide companies and governments cyber security support by assessing infrastructures, identifying potential cyber security vulnerabilities, addressing gaps and securing endpoints "with the goal of offering another channel to bring customers to a new standard of security."
This clearly suggests that the company is doing something right.
Much details about Giuliani's role in the Trump administration were not immediately available. We'll update the story with new developments.
This is quite on the nose, as the hacker group The Shadow Brokers just released a notice to advertise the sale of hacking tools freshly stolen from the NSA. This is only the second time they do so this year!
I'm surprisingly OK with this. Giuliani isn't deserving of any office, nor does he have any expertise, but I think he can do the least amount of lasting damage there.
Prestor Jon wrote: He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech because organizations were demanding a boycott of the company and that LL Bean fire one of the 50+ Bean family owners because she donated money to Trump's campaign.
Demanding a boycott and calling for firings is exercising one's freedom of speech. Trump, as a defender of freedom of speech, should be praising their actions.
No, trying to punish a company because a member of the ownership who is only tangentially involved with the company makes a donation from their personal wealth as a private citizen to the Republican presidential candidate's campaign for the sole purpose of trying to intimidate anyone else from making personal donations to politicians you don't like is clearly an operation designed to suppress speech. What exactly did LL Bean the corporate entity do wrong that warrants a boycott and what is the goal of the boycott? The outraged group has made it very clear that their goal is to punish LL Bean and the memeber of the Bean family that donated to Trump because they don't like Trump. Trying to whip up an angry online mob to punish businesses in order to intimidate people into withholding their support from politicians you deem unworthy is downright unAmerican.
Prestor Jon wrote: No, trying to punish a company because a member of the ownership who is only tangentially involved with the company makes a donation from their personal wealth as a private citizen to the Republican presidential candidate's campaign for the sole purpose of trying to intimidate anyone else from making personal donations to politicians you don't like is clearly an operation designed to suppress speech.
I don't know, this sounds an awful lot like people using their freedom of speech to say "use the free market to purchase from companies that I favor". Freedom of speech means that the government won't censor you for having unpopular opinions, it does NOT mean that your fellow citizens will not say " that guy".
What exactly did LL Bean the corporate entity do wrong that warrants a boycott and what is the goal of the boycott?
Who cares? LL Bean is not entitled to sales. Nor is there an obligation to only boycott for "good" reasons, from a freedom of speech or free market point of view. You can certainly disagree with the people advocating or participating in the boycott, but this isn't a freedom issue.
The outraged group has made it very clear that their goal is to punish LL Bean and the memeber of the Bean family that donated to Trump because they don't like Trump. Trying to whip up an angry online mob to punish businesses in order to intimidate people into withholding their support from politicians you deem unworthy is downright unAmerican.
It's not un-American at all, you just don't understand what freedom of speech means. Nothing about American law guarantees you freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
Remember how he offered someone (Kasich was it?) foreign and domestic affairs as VP? Trump doesn't want to do the work of being president, he just wants the prestige and adoring crowds that come with the job. I'm sure he will find plenty of time for tweeting.
Prestor Jon wrote: He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech because organizations were demanding a boycott of the company and that LL Bean fire one of the 50+ Bean family owners because she donated money to Trump's campaign.
Demanding a boycott and calling for firings is exercising one's freedom of speech. Trump, as a defender of freedom of speech, should be praising their actions.
No, trying to punish a company because a member of the ownership who is only tangentially involved with the company makes a donation from their personal wealth as a private citizen to the Republican presidential candidate's campaign for the sole purpose of trying to intimidate anyone else from making personal donations to politicians you don't like is clearly an operation designed to suppress speech. What exactly did LL Bean the corporate entity do wrong that warrants a boycott and what is the goal of the boycott? The outraged group has made it very clear that their goal is to punish LL Bean and the memeber of the Bean family that donated to Trump because they don't like Trump. Trying to whip up an angry online mob to punish businesses in order to intimidate people into withholding their support from politicians you deem unworthy is downright unAmerican.
You will be MADE to care prestor... now bake me my damn cake!
I'm just imagining the cognitive dissonance a bunch of people will be having about that company, yet probably happily did their Hamilton or Starbucks protests.
In the UK a few years ago we had a "cash for honours" scandal, and wasn't there also some sort of "cash for access" thing with Hillary? I'm wondering if those people upset are also upset for, "cash for tweets" from the most powerful person in the planet.
Although in saying all that, it's ultimately the politician that should hold the responsibility and held to account. Companies do what companies do. In saying that, that still doesn't mean you *have* to buy from them.
whembly wrote: You will be MADE to care prestor... now bake me my damn cake!
What happened to conservative ideas about the free market?
Don't care what other people spend their money.
You wanna boycott? Boycott away...
Just don't presume immunity from criticisms.
If you had paid attention to the beginning, the point was that Prestor Jon was making a weird claim that the boycott and wanting an exec fired was somehow anti-free speech.
A. The idea of Donald "I'll sue ya" Trump being a protector of free speech is hilarious. He literaly wants to make it so he can sue news orginiastion when they print bad stuff about him.
B. Calls for a boycott/firing is free speech. Stupid speech, but never the less, free.
whembly wrote: You will be MADE to care prestor... now bake me my damn cake!
What happened to conservative ideas about the free market?
Don't care what other people spend their money.
You wanna boycott? Boycott away...
Just don't presume immunity from criticisms.
If you had paid attention to the beginning, the point was that Prestor Jon was making a weird claim that the boycott and wanting an exec fired was somehow anti-free speech.
Boycotts are fine.
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
A. The idea of Donald "I'll sue ya" Trump being a protector of free speech is hilarious. He literaly wants to make it so he can sue news orginiastion when they print bad stuff about him.
Didn't get that he was arguing for Drumpf being protector of speech.
B. Calls for a boycott/firing is free speech. Stupid speech, but never the less, free.
whembly wrote: You will be MADE to care prestor... now bake me my damn cake!
What happened to conservative ideas about the free market?
Don't care what other people spend their money.
You wanna boycott? Boycott away...
Just don't presume immunity from criticisms.
If you had paid attention to the beginning, the point was that Prestor Jon was making a weird claim that the boycott and wanting an exec fired was somehow anti-free speech.
Boycotts are fine.
However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
A. The idea of Donald "I'll sue ya" Trump being a protector of free speech is hilarious. He literaly wants to make it so he can sue news orginiastion when they print bad stuff about him.
Didn't get that he was arguing for Drumpf being protector of speech.
B. Calls for a boycott/firing is free speech. Stupid speech, but never the less, free.
Aye.
Prestor Jon aid :"He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech" I may have misinterpreted it, but that's what it sounds like.
Also, I wouldn't use the word "chilling" when speaking about a bunch of people going "we don't like you and think you should be fired!", when it has other implications. And it's still free speech, also known as "dealing with the consequences of your actions". If you support a very unpopular candidate (someone who is at 51% disapprove before he has even gotten in office, the time which presidents are usually at their most popular) expect there to be people, rightly or wrongly, angry at you. I don't agree with it, but it's not anti-free speech.
Prestor Jon wrote: He tweeted a positive comment about LL Bean to show support for the company and for freedom of speech because organizations were demanding a boycott of the company and that LL Bean fire one of the 50+ Bean family owners because she donated money to Trump's campaign.
Demanding a boycott and calling for firings is exercising one's freedom of speech. Trump, as a defender of freedom of speech, should be praising their actions.
I don't know about you but I am shocked shocked I say that the party of getting Congressional regulations to stop "picking winners and losers" in the business world is now happy to endorse the executive picking winners and losers in the business world. Even better (and more shocking!) "winner" in the case means "gave me campaign money" from the candidate who liked to brag about how little campaign money he needed to win.
EDIT: Though LL Bean does make a nice affordable line of winter coats
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
Whembly, pedestrians can't prove anything if they're dead.
"Whoops, sorry officer, that guy I hit and killed, totally by accident, really was in the middle of the road. You'll just have to take my word for it that the light was green for me at the time."
Excellent Trump appointment for Secretary of Homeland Security, General John Kelly & I discuss border security with my wall model on table.
.. we have two options here :
The whole Stonehenge bit from Spinal Tap or the more recent school bit from Zoolander
"Donald gave me a drawing that said 18 inches. Now, whether or not he knows the difference between feet and inches is not my problem. I do what I'm told."
On a side note :
poor quality modelling really eh ? No layering or detail in the weathering effect. No scenic base either & the wire is woefully out of scale.
..well.. one assumes anyway.
I would be ashamed to put that on my gaming table.
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
Grow up... I said no such thing.
Really? Did you not just say that you are OK with a law that allows drives to kill or injure people protesting and blocking the road, by making it harder to prosecute because you have, and I quote, "zero empathy". Literally read what you just wrote and think about it more than the three seconds you usually give stuff. The law is a fethed-up revenge fantasy come alive.
Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.
So it's OK too injure and kill people who are disobeying the law to protest? I thought gak like that died in the 60's, but I guess that's a perfectly fine thing to say.
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!
Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.
And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!
Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.
And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...
Hey man. If he hadn't been protesting the existence of red lights and cross walks he'd still be alive.
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
Grow up... I said no such thing.
Really? Did you not just say that you are OK with a law that allows drives to kill or injure people protesting and blocking the road, by making it harder to prosecute because you have, and I quote, "zero empathy". Literally read what you just wrote and think about it more than the three seconds you usually give stuff. The law is a fethed-up revenge fantasy come alive.
The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people. Jaysus... are you reading what you're writing here?
Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak. People ought to know better.
If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
Um, the driver would be nabbed for manslaugter. Any podunk po-po can easily charge the driver for manslaughter. This isn't a "get out jail card".
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!
Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.
And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...
If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?
What I see is a political party punishing dissent for the mere act of dissent, and a constituency that cheers them on with no thought and no consideration.
The word "fascist" in regards to Republicans has finally ceased to be hyperbole.
whembly wrote: Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak.
No it isn't. In the kind of "shut down the street" protests we're talking about the protest is easily visible, traffic is slowed sufficiently that braking distance and reaction time are not relevant, and the only reason hitting a person is at all a possible outcome is that people don't want to accept that the road is shut down and try to force their way through. If you are driving safely, which includes yielding to pedestrians no matter where they may be or what you might think of their actions, you will not hit a protestor.
After the Ferguson riots and NC riots... I have zero empathy.
I'm for this. Looking at ND's makeup, I really doubt this'll pass... unless, the peeps there are pissed at the protestors.
Um, the driver would be nabbed for manslaugter. Any podunk po-po can easily charge the driver for manslaughter. This isn't a "get out jail card".
This is is boys, Whembly has OKed murder if it's against the other side!
All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!
Walking in the middle of a street or highway to shut down traffic isn't 'protesting'. That's civil disobedience.
And what about simply crossing the street at a crosswalk and getting hit and killed by someone running the red light? Kinda hard to prove your innocence when you're dead...
Any podunk po-po will nab the driver for at least manslaughter. This isn't a "Get out of jail card".
The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people. Jaysus... are you reading what you're writing here?
Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak. People ought to know better.
If you wanna protest and walk up/down a street... get a god damn permit for it. That's the right thing to do for public safety.... can you not see that?
This is literally (and I mean that in the correct usage of the word) the opposite of a public safety law. It's making it easier for those who hit, injure, and even kill people blocking traffic harder to prosecute (because people were “having their lives disrupted” ).
whembly wrote: The law doesn't "allow" drivers to kill or injure people.
That's exactly what it does. The proposed law changes the burden of proof to the victim. Currently if you hit a pedestrian the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was an unavoidable accident, not reckless driving/negligence/etc. Under the proposed law the driver is now assumed to be innocent (as long as the victim is a protestor illegally blocking the street) and won't be convicted unless the prosecution can prove that the act was deliberate. Because proving this is virtually impossible all a driver has to do to escape the consequences of murder is say "oops, I didn't mean to do it".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...
Again, yes, it is safe in this context. If all drivers involved are following the laws about yielding to pedestrians (and other safe-driving rules) traffic will be stopped entirely if is not safe to proceed through the protest area. The only danger comes from drivers who refuse to accept that the road is shut down and try to force their way through, creating a dangerous situation. 100% of the fault in any injury is with the driver, not the protestor.
Yes were reaching the point where people can say that and I won't give them a weird look.
Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...
No one said that, and if you stopped riding the bandwagon for a bit you'd realize how insane things are becoming.
Great way to garner sympathy for our cause!
And this is why it's all becoming a sick joke. You don't even realize how ludicrous it is to trumpet your "zero empathy" and then talk about how other people should look to you to garner sympathy.
Walking in traffic amidst a protests is totes safe...
Great way to garner sympathy for our cause!
Nobody said it was safe, but somehow I think making it less so is going to solve anything.
Driving while drunk is also not safe, they help that with campaign and laws, not by making it so all cars have worse handling when a drunk person drives it.
whembly wrote: However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".
Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.
So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.
I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.
the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there, and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.
Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety...
...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety...
...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?
Hey man. If I can fantasize about gunning down a criminal in my house, why can't I fantasize about running down a criminal in my road?
Nothing wrong with killing people as long as they deserve it!
whembly wrote: However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".
Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.
So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.
Civil disobedience <> protesting.
The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.
I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.
For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...
the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,
That is incorrect. You can be arrested.
and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Let's say that protesting on a freeway is breaking the law and deserves punishment to protect public safety... ...Since when does such a crime warrant being hit by a civilian car, with the trial coming afterward to see if the driver incorrectly carried out that punishment?
... hey, I'm not the one advocating that they warrant being hit by a car.
whembly wrote: However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".
Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.
So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.
Civil disobedience <> protesting.
The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.
I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.
For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...
the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,
That is incorrect. You can be arrested.
and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.
arrested for what exactly? if no laws are being broken it can't be civil disobedience.
keeping in mind "The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
whembly wrote: Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.
Nobody, except you when you say you have zero sympathy for a murdered protester.
Saying you have Zero empathy does NOT equal advocating murder. Thats fething ridiculous. All it means is that a person doesn't care that it happened, that they won't shed a tear.
So attack Whembly for being a heartless bastard if you must, but accusing him of inciting violence is Libel and you owe Whembly an apology. This is a false accusation of a criminal offence.
whembly wrote: However, wanted an exec fired (like Brendan Eich's Mozilla... who stepped down) is chilling free speech imo.
No it isn't. Freedom of speech has never meant "you can't be fired for the things you say".
Didn't say so... only pointing out how despicable it is to advocate someone to lose his/her job over said person's speech.
So it's despicable to use ones first amendment rights and advocate someone losing their job, but you're ok with people losing their lives for exercising their first amendment rights.
Civil disobedience <> protesting.
The former can get you jailed/fined and the latter perfectly fine.
I think you have your priorities backwards and I agree, you have no empathy.
For shutting down a highway? I sure as feth don't have empathy...
the highways are public spaces, therefore we are free to assemble there,
That is incorrect. You can be arrested.
and violating that right by trying to kill the protesters is the most unamerican thing you could possibly do.
Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: you guys are on a silly roll tonight.
arrested for what exactly? if no laws are being broken it can't be civil disobedience.
It is against the law to block roads, as it's a public safety issue.
It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
keeping in mind "The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
Blocking traffic is not a "peacable assembly".
EDIT: I am heartless bastard in this regard. Having lived 15 minutes away from the Ferguson riots and being stuck on the highway for over 3 hours TWICE because of these civil disobedience, will do that to you.
I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
whembly wrote: It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.
Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.
You seem okay enough with it to state having "zero empathy." Whatever subtle difference might exist (and I really don't think there is one) between "I have zero empathy. I'm for this" and "I'm not saying it's ok of these people are hit by cars" doesn't seem enough for me to rank one better than the other. Both statements are kind of equal grades of "this is why people call Republicans evil and if people really don't like the later following the former they should really start thinking before speaking."
Put it this way. If Trump is assassinated, will anybody here shed a tear? No? Congratulations, you've just "incited murder".
Except no one here has advocated passing a law that immunizes people for killing presidents they don't like.
I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.
whembly wrote: It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.
Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.
You seem okay enough with it to state having "zero empathy." Whatever subtle difference might exist (and I really don't think there is one) between "I have zero empathy. I'm for this" and "I'm not saying it's ok of these people are hit by cars" doesn't seem enough for me to rank one better than the other. Both statements are kind of equal grades of "this is why people call Republicans evil and if people really don't like the later following the former they should really start thinking before speaking."
NO, for feths sake.
One scenario means Whembly is a heartless bastard. The other scenario means he is inciting violence.
Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false. And it clearly is false. We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered. Would you have any empathy for a rapist, serial killer or murderer who is shanked and killed in Prison? Not caring doesn't mean you agree that it should happen.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
A. happiness isn't a right
B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Put it this way. If Trump is assassinated, will anybody here shed a tear? No? Congratulations, you've just "incited murder".
The difference here is that most of us who say "I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump is assassinated" are only presenting it as a hypothetical because advocating the murder of the president tends to get a lot more attention from the police than similar suggestions about murdering random protesters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.
LordofHats wrote: Except no one here has advocated passing a law that immunizes people for killing presidents they don't like.
I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.
But does it actually immunize the driver? Whembly's words were "it shifts the burden of proof to the protester". Not "drivers who run over protesters should be immune to prosecution".
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
A. happiness isn't a right
B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?
C. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights
B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce
C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [b]Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.
Then it's a good thing I've not accused Whembly of inciting violence?
Even if I were, it's not automatically libel. Libel requires me to knowingly say something I know to be false.
I don't think anything I've said is false and certainly don't know any of it to be false. It could be (it's not), but libel is only libel if I know its false and it can be proven I knew that when I said it.
And it clearly is false.
I disagree.
We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered.
Who said he was?
Would you have any empathy for a rapist, serial killer or murderer who is shanked and killed in Prison?
Yes.
Not caring doesn't mean you agree that it should happen.
No, but not caring and supporting a measure would seem to indicate one 1) supports the measure and 2) doesn't care about the consequences which thus far seems to be the accusation.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.
What about that famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" aspect of the Declaration of Independence? Was that just a bit of prose, and never codified in the Constitution or other law?
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
Because the right to pursue happiness is not a right that exists in US law.
Yet unlawfully blocking public access and use of public property is? I think that's a stretch.
thekingofkings wrote: A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights
Not under US law.
B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce
They can also protest in areas that are not approved, without permits. The first amendment does not include a "only in permitted areas with approval by the government" disclaimer.
And in any case, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the police, not random drivers. If a protest shuts down the street then the only acceptable act for you, as a driver, is to stop your car, yield to pedestrians (including pedestrians that are doing something you disagree with), and wait until the road is clear before proceeding. Whether the road clearing is accomplished by the protesters voluntarily ending their protest or the police removing them from the street, the driver is 100% responsible for any injuries caused and should suffer the appropriate civil and/or criminal penalties.
C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Everyone should pick their words very carefully here, you're accusing Whembly of a criminal offence which is Libel if false.
None of this is true.
Besides, this is an anonymous internet forum. I could claim that Whem eats live puppies and rapes sheep and it wouldn't be libel (and I'd like to point out I'm not, from my experience he's a perfectly wonderful human being, just with partisanship issues.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
How does blocking off one road deprive you of your rights? It is fair game to block roads, though they should get a permit first though.
is it just the roads closed due to protesters you feel denies you your rights? or is it any time they're closed say for parades or road work?
Can you not detour around them? do you not get traffic alerts? back in the caveman days when I was in a traffic jam because of wild fires, people did the sensible thing and cut across the median and doubled back.
whembly wrote: It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.
Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.
Then what the feth are you saying?
Okay... let's unpack this so that maybe ya'll can stop putting words in my mouth.
This propose SD law simply changes the burden of proof from the driver to the pedestrian. While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space. THIS.IS.NOT.A.GET.OUT.TO.JAIL.CARD for the driver. If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter. This proposal doesn't change that, nor does it encourage protester murdering. You're being hyperbolic... dial it down a bit please.
Is it a law designed to be vindictive over what's transpiring at the pipeline ordeal... absolutely. You're free to call 'em dicks.
So, from where I coming from, 15 mins away from the Ferguson riots and having been stuck twice on the highways because of these civil disobedience shutting down highways. I have zero empathy for anyone's cause. feth them. If that makes me a cold unfeeling bastard, so be it, I'll own up to that.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
Far to often, our culture has become excessively deferential to violating the rights of others.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore. They're supposed to protect us from the lawbreakers, not the other way around.
LordofHats wrote: I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.
To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont think they need to be killed or anything like that, but it is not their right to deprive others of their rights. Why does their right to free speech trump everyone elses right to pursue happiness. IT is hypocrisy.
A. happiness isn't a right
B. how does making you wait in traffic stop you from doing that?
C. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
A) you are wrong, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS are fundamental rights
B) they can protest in approved areas with permits, thus they can still exercise their right without halting traffic and commerce
C) gibberish, but this is part of why the left has been so despised of late,. you can accuse the republicans of all kind of evils but it is the left that is the worst evil and hypocrites besides.
Other points have already been covered, but I'm expressing hilarity at how fething out there your statement was.
BTW, what are these atrocities "the left" has committed.
LordofHats wrote: I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.
To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.
whembly wrote: While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space.
Which:
1) Is rather difficult if you are dead.
2) Fundamentally misunderstands basic concepts of criminal law. The victim of a crime is not obligated to show anything in court, the state is.
3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.
With a defense of "they were in the road illegally, it was an accident" that requires an unreasonable standard of proof to overcome and makes it virtually impossible to convict anyone.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
No it is not.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.
There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.
Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.
LordofHats wrote: I probably wouldn't cry if someone murdered Trump. I would expect the killer to go to jail for it. Murder isn't okay just because the guy who was murdered was a donkey-cave.
To be fair, if I was on the jury for Trump's assassin I'd vote "not guilty" as a matter of principle. But, unlike whembly, I'm not going to evade and hide from this fact.
I thought a lot better of you until this.
that would be a tough case to sit through. The make believe assassin would probably be former military and if he claimed he did it to defend the constitution as he pledged to do, he could possibly walk.
people are innocent until proven guilty so starting with "not guilty" is the right place to be for any juror.
I do not advocate any attempts on the presidents life, and I love the work the NSA is doing for us. HI guys
whembly wrote: While that is unusual and is most likely the first of its kind, all that does, IN COURT, forces the pedestrian to show the court that they have a right to that space.
Which:
1) Is rather difficult if you are dead.
2) Fundamentally misunderstands basic concepts of criminal law. The victim of a crime is not obligated to show anything in court, the state is.
3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.
With a defense of "they were in the road illegally, it was an accident" that requires an unreasonable standard of proof to overcome and makes it virtually impossible to convict anyone.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
No it is not.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.
There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.
Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.
dying is one thing, but murder is a bridge too far.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.
Civil disobedience by definition, is an unlawful gathering.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
No it is not.
So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.
There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.
Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.
Stop whitewashing this, it's more than an inconvience. It's a safety hazard as well, potentially impacting emergency vehicle movements.
Then you must not have paid much attention. I've made no secret of the fact that I feel zero sympathy when awful people, especially awful people in positions of power, die. I will gleefully dance on the grave of dictators, corrupt and abusive politicians, etc.
Then by your own standards you are advocating violence, the exact thing you are accusing Whembly of, which makes you a hypocrite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: We're not obliged to care when someone is murdered.
whembly wrote: Jeez... it's put words in Whem's mouth night. No one is advocating killing the protesters.
Nobody, except you when you say you have zero sympathy for a murdered protester.
You did.
LordofHats wrote: All praise to glorious party. How dare anyone disagree and exercise "right to protest." Under the wheels with them I say!
You haven't responded to my prior question.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But does it actually immunize the driver? And Whembly's words were "it shifts the burden of proof to the protester". Not "drivers who run over protesters should be immune to prosecution". If the law actually does immunize the driver, not just shift the burden of proof like Whembly believes, then he is mistaken and you're over-reacching
these 