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.
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Yep, still wants ACA repealed and have our congressional critters another crack at making the system better.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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/01/13 18:49:19
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/13 18:02:45
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/13 18:18:18
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.
Anything that sounds good I wrote. Anything that doesn't is clearly someone else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/13 18:41:06
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/13 19:02:55
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!
Hail to the Chief!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/13 19:08:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/13 19:30:53
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
~1.5k
