Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LOL I'm in the same boat as Cruz. I found out recently myself I was a dual citizen with Thailand.

 Jihadin wrote:
LOL I'm in the same boat as Cruz. I found out recently myself I was a dual citizen with Thailand.

I am(was) one of Greece. I renounced my citizenship, to the US Government at least, when I joined the military, but Greece might still recognize me as a citizen, don't know. Certainly nothing that I really claim.

 whembly wrote:
Right... these guys weren't objecting to any plans from Obama/Democrats in a vacuum Ouze... it was wildly unpopular to their base.

And why did their base hate it? Because the republican propaganda machine did everything it could to tell them to hate it. Of course your base is going to hate a new health care law when fox news is ranting 24/7 about "death panels" and similar lies. The republican party made a conscious choice here, don't act like they're humble elected officials representing only the interests of their citizens.

What do you want them to do? Thumb their nose to the very people who voted for them?

What I want them to do is stop acting like spoiled children and understand that making sure the government functions properly is more important than DESTROY OBAMA AT ANY COST ONE TERM PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... these guys weren't objecting to any plans from Obama/Democrats in a vacuum Ouze... it was wildly unpopular to their base.

And why did their base hate it? Because the republican propaganda machine did everything it could to tell them to hate it. Of course your base is going to hate a new health care law when fox news is ranting 24/7 about "death panels" and similar lies. The republican party made a conscious choice here, don't act like they're humble elected officials representing only the interests of their citizens.

What do you want them to do? Thumb their nose to the very people who voted for them?

What I want them to do is stop acting like spoiled children and understand that making sure the government functions properly is more important than DESTROY OBAMA AT ANY COST ONE TERM PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

What you're describing that natural political environment... at that same time, trying to spin anything bad that's happening because Republicans didn't want to play ball.

Hmmm... damn near exact same things, from the other side of the political spectrum when Bush was in office.

Welcome to American Politics(TM)

In other news... isn’t it odd that fellow political science majors at Columbia University have no recollection of Barack Obama. Yet, the media already published a report on Ted Cruz at Princeton, including an interview with his first roommate. Not that I have a problem that the media is already "vetting" Cruz if he chooses to run for higher office... that's what they're supposed to do... just wished they used the same gumption on Obama.

 whembly wrote:

What you're describing that natural political environment...

Is that really true? It seems impossible that the default status quo around the world is the incredibly polarized, nearly unworkable government we currently have.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What you're describing that natural political environment...

Is that really true? It seems impossible that the default status quo around the world is the incredibly polarized, nearly unworkable government we currently have.

Natural in the sense that's the current environment.

Do you foresee any politician/group working together like this?

So, to get back to Cruz, is the idea basically defund Obamacare or we are going to crash the Government.... again? I'm not following this that closely as I have mostly tuned ACA sabre-rattling out.

 Easy E wrote:
So, to get back to Cruz, is the idea basically defund Obamacare or we are going to crash the Government.... again? I'm not following this that closely as I have mostly tuned ACA sabre-rattling out.

The current budget is through October... I believe.

He's advocating that Congress pass a Continuing Resolution to fully fund the government except for the ACA (essentially inserting riders prohibiting any expenditures used towards the ACA). Which the Senate (or even Obama) will NEVER sign on to...

It's interesting conversation because congress can truly NOT fund any program if it wants to... because, the power of the purse lies with them.

But, it's a totally useless exercise because the political realities.

He's simply pandering to his constituents.

 whembly wrote:


It's interesting conversation because congress can truly NOT fund any program if it wants to... because, the power of the purse lies with them.

Except I don't think they can do that with a Continuing Resolution. They would have to pass an actual budget to do it. And since Congress has failed to pass a budget on time for almost as long as most of us have been alive, we'll be under a CR again come October 1.

 whembly wrote:


In other news... isn’t it odd that fellow political science majors at Columbia University have no recollection of Barack Obama. Yet, the media already published a report on Ted Cruz at Princeton, including an interview with his first roommate. Not that I have a problem that the media is already "vetting" Cruz if he chooses to run for higher office... that's what they're supposed to do... just wished they used the same gumption on Obama.

That whole 'no one knowing him' isn't weird at all whembly. I could fly to the moon tomorrow in wings of fire, and the only person in my entire university course who would recognize me is my de facto partner, which doesn't really count. She'd recognize me whether we did the same uni course or not.

whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... these guys weren't objecting to any plans from Obama/Democrats in a vacuum Ouze... it was wildly unpopular to their base.

And why did their base hate it? Because the republican propaganda machine did everything it could to tell them to hate it. Of course your base is going to hate a new health care law when fox news is ranting 24/7 about "death panels" and similar lies. The republican party made a conscious choice here, don't act like they're humble elected officials representing only the interests of their citizens.

What do you want them to do? Thumb their nose to the very people who voted for them?

What I want them to do is stop acting like spoiled children and understand that making sure the government functions properly is more important than DESTROY OBAMA AT ANY COST ONE TERM PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

What you're describing that natural political environment... at that same time, trying to spin anything bad that's happening because Republicans didn't want to play ball.

Hmmm... damn near exact same things, from the other side of the political spectrum when Bush was in office.

Welcome to American Politics(TM)

In other news... isn’t it odd that fellow political science majors at Columbia University have no recollection of Barack Obama. Yet, the media already published a report on Ted Cruz at Princeton, including an interview with his first roommate. Not that I have a problem that the media is already "vetting" Cruz if he chooses to run for higher office... that's what they're supposed to do... just wished they used the same gumption on Obama.

1. No, that is not the "natural political environment". A natural political environment is a spectrum of compromises, not contests to see who can hold their breath the longest.

2. I cannot remember a single one of my fellow Criminology or History majors at SFU who weren't skinny, dark-haired girls with pretty eyes. So please, just stop with your goddamned birther conspiracy lizardmen garbage now before your tinfoil hat even starts to heat up.

 whembly wrote:
Right... when Obama said "I Won (TM)", that's really conducive to have any meaningful say to the table.

Who gives a gak who said what? They're words, they don't change the basics of politics. Obama could have come out and said 'I won, and feth all those Republican whiteys' but the reality is that Obama needed 60 votes in the senate, and to get every single one of those 60 democratic senators he had to offer up stuff that he didn't want to give up, and compromise elements of the bill.

At any point in that process the GOP could have come in with an alternative, any individual Republican could have offered their vote in order to make the bill more like what they desired.

They didn't of course, because they backed a different play - they wanted this to tank Obama much as Clinton's healthcare reform had cost him politically. It was the big play to wipe the shine off Obama, and rebuild the Republican brand that had become so toxic post Bush. And it isn't as though any of that is a big secret - Republican leaders were saying this stuff openly at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
And why did their base hate it? Because the republican propaganda machine did everything it could to tell them to hate it. Of course your base is going to hate a new health care law when fox news is ranting 24/7 about "death panels" and similar lies. The republican party made a conscious choice here, don't act like they're humble elected officials representing only the interests of their citizens.

One of the more interesting interpretations I've read of the whole healthcare reform debacle is that 9 times out of 10 this kind of thing dies in committee, or limps to a vote that never gets the numbers. Even when a president announces it as their grand policy. Because there's just so many ways that reform on this kind of scale upsets too many inside players, that people work to get this kind of thing killed silently.

But the Republicans weren't at all interested in just killing this thing. This wasn't about healthcare reform, but about Obama and the Democrats and their massive 2008 win, and a way to put the Republicans back on the map. So they openly ran against this thing using the kind of language usually reserved for legislation on legalising panda torture.

The irony being that because they whipped up their base so strongly, and got everyone in such a frenzy about the whole thing the Democrats were basically left with no option but to finally get some party discipline and pass this thing. The political cost of healthcare was already paid, and couldn't be any worse no matter what they passed, so they just had to do it.

Truly, this has made me realize we need to only send our best and brightest to the US Sentate



/not shopped
//sigh

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/19/the-obamas-got-a-new-puppy-everyone/#ixzz2cXEwaZjl

best line ...

With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs.

The Obamas do not have any white dogs.

It's like someone watch that Ferrell movie " The Campaign" and thought it was a documentary.

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. No, that is not the "natural political environment". A natural political environment is a spectrum of compromises, not contests to see who can hold their breath the longest.

2. I cannot remember a single one of my fellow Criminology or History majors at SFU who weren't skinny, dark-haired girls with pretty eyes. So please, just stop with your goddamned birther conspiracy lizardmen garbage now before your tinfoil hat even starts to heat up.

 reds8n wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/19/the-obamas-got-a-new-puppy-everyone/#ixzz2cXEwaZjl

best line ...

With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs.

The Obamas do not have any white dogs.

Ladies, gentlemen - we have a level 2 breach of Poe's Law. This is not a drill.

 Ouze wrote:
Truly, this has made me realize we need to only send our best and brightest to the US Sentate



/not shopped
//sigh

If elected I hope he sponsors a literacy bill

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


If elected I hope he sponsors a literacy bill

*shrugs* That's particularly egregious... but, happens all the time. See Obama's (or whomever is typing) tweet:

More than 57,000 pre-K children are feeling the affects of the #sequester: http://t.co/ZxobWd5WnX

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 19, 2013

It’s “effects” not “affects,” Barack (or psuedo-Barack).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It things like this that'll hurt...

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html:

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

The decision comes as many analysts are downplaying the Affordable Care Act's effect on companies such as UPS, noting that the move reflects a long-term trend of shrinking corporate medical benefits, Kaiser Health News reports. But UPS repeatedly cites Obamacare to explain the decision, adding fuel to the debate over whether it erodes traditional employer coverage, Kaiser says.

Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

According to Kaiser, UPS (NYSE: UPS) told white-collar workers two months ago that 15,000 working spouses eligible for coverage by their own employers would be excluded from the UPS plan in 2014.

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, company spokesman Andy McGowan said.

The health law requires large employers to cover employees and dependent children, but not spouses or domestic partners, Kaiser adds.
Kaiser said the Obama administration would not respond directly to UPS' statements, but said that employer coverage increased when Massachusetts implemented its own version of the health overhaul.

"The health care law will make health insurance more affordable, strengthen small businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers," said Joanne Peters, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Earlier this week, Forever 21 Inc. became the latest national company to cut employee hours to counter the impact of Obamacare, according to Policymic.com.

Atlanta-based AAA Parking, a parking garage operator that employs more than 1,600 companywide, moved about half of its 500 full-time hourly employees to part-time status on April 15, in response to the law.

If I was Carr...I stick with it as a reminder on why we need better education today...."Sentate" I will so totally embrace that

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. No, that is not the "natural political environment". A natural political environment is a spectrum of compromises, not contests to see who can hold their breath the longest.

2. I cannot remember a single one of my fellow Criminology or History majors at SFU who weren't skinny, dark-haired girls with pretty eyes. So please, just stop with your goddamned birther conspiracy lizardmen garbage now before your tinfoil hat even starts to heat up.

fething hell dude... I've always said the whole birtherism gak was dumb. o.O There were waaaaaaay better things to nitpick Obama than that.

And I don't believe, for one second, that NO ONE fething remembers someone in those colleges... who ended up being the fething President of the USofA. So, dial back your sanctimonious faux outrage back a bit boyo.

No, not until you stop posting trash questions like that. They are an act of cowardice.

whembly wrote:In other news... isn’t it odd that fellow political science majors at Columbia University have no recollection of Barack Obama.

If you're going to make a claim, then make a claim and try to defend your position. But don't try to hide your implications in the form of questions like that.

EDIT: edited to fix quotes

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. No, that is not the "natural political environment". A natural political environment is a spectrum of compromises, not contests to see who can hold their breath the longest.

2. I cannot remember a single one of my fellow Criminology or History majors at SFU who weren't skinny, dark-haired girls with pretty eyes. So please, just stop with your goddamned birther conspiracy lizardmen garbage now before your tinfoil hat even starts to heat up.

fething hell dude... I've always said the whole birtherism gak was dumb. o.O There were waaaaaaay better things to nitpick Obama than that.

And I don't believe, for one second, that NO ONE fething remembers someone in those colleges... who ended up being the fething President of the USofA. So, dial back your sanctimonious faux outrage back a bit boyo.

No, not until you stop posting trash questions like that. They are an act of cowardice.

Bull.gak.
Act of cowardice? Please fething explain.

whembly wrote:In other news... isn’t it odd that fellow political science majors at Columbia University have no recollection of Barack Obama.

If you're going to make a claim, then make a claim and try to defend your position. But don't try to hide your implications in the form of questions like that.

EDIT: edited to fix quotes

What? You need an elementary grade level statement?

Fine: Obama was, and will never be vetted the same way if it was anyone else... especially a prospective Republican candidate.

You think you can follow that?

Whembly. Take a step back and regroup your thoughts.

Why would Obama "vet" be different then everyone else?

 Jihadin wrote:
Whembly. Take a step back and regroup your thoughts.

I'm cool... been drinking some brewskies and watching the 4th season of Warehouse 13.

Why would Obama "vet" be different then everyone else?

That's the question, eh?

 whembly wrote:

That's the question, eh?

Not in any way, shape, or form, at least in this thread. If you feel the need to rant about whether he actually attended college or not, or whatever claim you are trying to make, start a new thread, because it is unrelated to the ACA.