“No. 1 Stunna”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92054 Oct 1, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
This shut-down plan is just their Plan B because they couldn't repeal the law in over 40 votes. And these congressmen didn't vote for the repeal of slavery either, so let's reinstitute it until they get the opportunity to do that. If that's the way you want government to be run, well then this country would really be f*cked.
Oh, ah, yes, lets turn to slavery. The republican party was actually the party that fought against slavery. That's kind of a key distinction. Why would they want to reinstitute something they were against?
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>Oh and the people have already decided in an election how bad they really wanted the ACA. But since you believe that we are just too stupid to know what we really want or need, you're gonna fix it for us.
Wrong. The democrats won the Presidency, despite Obamcare. Republicans ALSO won the house. Just because there is a democrat President doesn't mean the house republicans have to do whatever he wants. That's not the way our government works. We aren't a dictatorship. And even if a past Congress voted in favor of a law a subsequent Congress doesn't have to support it or fund it if they don't want to.
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>And please please please stop telling me what I believe. I have never stated an opinion on here (that I remember) about the dream act or immigration, so you have no idea what I think about this. And since that is not our current problem, it doesn't matter what I think about it.
Point of the dream act is Obama did an end around to get his way. If he can do an end around to get his way, so can the house republicans. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

“No. 1 Stunna”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92055 Oct 1, 2013
Toj wrote:
I thought this was interesting:
"And not all of the alleged dangers to businesses hold up to scrutiny. Is Obamacare a “job killer,” as many Republicans charge? Economists say it’s just not showing that kind of impact — at least so far. And is it going to cause employers everywhere to slash their workers’ benefits? Even UPS, which got national attention for cutting its health coverage for spouses who can get their coverage elsewhere, now says it can’t really blame Obamacare for that one.
“I wouldn’t characterize it as,‘We did this because of Obamacare,’” UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross told POLITICO — even though its memo to employees was full of references to the law."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/how-oba...
Yes, I'm sure that's some real impartial journalism from Politico.com . That's the same website that hired some guy to be their washing bureau chief, despite him being fired by yahoo news who was fired for saying the GOP was "happy to have a party with black people drowning" during the 2012 RNC convention in Tampa, Florida.

Here's something more impartial from CNN that says 9 out of 14 economists disagree with the premise of your article.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/30/news/economy/...

In the future, please try not to be so "open minded" that you get your news from places that have about as much journalistic integrity of the onion...

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#92056 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, ah, yes, lets turn to slavery. The republican party was actually the party that fought against slavery. That's kind of a key distinction. Why would they want to reinstitute something they were against?
Because the current congress didn't vote on it, of course.
Sublime1 wrote:
Wrong. The democrats won the Presidency, despite Obamcare. Republicans ALSO won the house. Just because there is a democrat President doesn't mean the house republicans have to do whatever he wants. That's not the way our government works. We aren't a dictatorship. And even if a past Congress voted in favor of a law a subsequent Congress doesn't have to support it or fund it if they don't want to.

So if I'm wrong, then why isn't there a republican in the white house?

[QUOTE who="Sublime1"]Point of the dream act is Obama did an end around to get his way. If he can do an end around to get his way, so can the house republicans. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Oh, I'm sorry. In my house, we say "two wrongs don't make a right."
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#92057 Oct 1, 2013
Why shouldn't slavery be on the table again? Both houses voted to end it and the president signed it. I think the USSC signed off on it too. In a Constitutional republic why should that mean anything? The second place finishers of that era were pretty upset about the slavery issue. In a republic or a democracy, should the wishes of the 2nd place finishers take precedent over the majority? Doesn't that make sense?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#92058 Oct 1, 2013
Couldn't post from my phone today. Could read the comments, but the post your own comment section wouldn't come up. Must be the shutdown...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#92059 Oct 1, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> This game they play, by blaming everyone else, especially President Obama....while tea party House republicans have worked againest the good of the country consistantly, since, January 2009.....
Remind you of anyone? Obama spent the first four years of his failed presidency blaming Bush. He's spent his fifth year blaming House Republicans. Amazing how Democrats hold the White House and the Senate, yet aren't responsible for anything.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#92060 Oct 1, 2013
squishymama wrote:
I will never agree that this shutdown is the democrats' fault. It didn't turn out that way the last time and it won't turn out that way this time either. And it has nothing to do with what I believe; it has everything to do with how they behave.
Democrats are the ones refusing to compromise. Obama stated "I will not compromise." The Democrats refuse to negotiate. How is that the Republicans' fault? Please explain.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#92061 Oct 1, 2013
Obama is intent on dividing this country. First, he tried to start a class war. Remember the 99%ers? He failed.

Then he tried to start a race war. He went on national TV and admitted he hates white people. He failed.

Now he's trying to use partisan. "It's them against us" is his mantra.

“No. 1 Stunna”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92062 Oct 1, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, I'm sorry. In my house, we say "two wrongs don't make a right."
That kind of thinking will get you run over in politics. It's how the game is played.

“No. 1 Stunna”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92063 Oct 1, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
Why shouldn't slavery be on the table again? Both houses voted to end it and the president signed it. I think the USSC signed off on it too. In a Constitutional republic why should that mean anything? The second place finishers of that era were pretty upset about the slavery issue. In a republic or a democracy, should the wishes of the 2nd place finishers take precedent over the majority? Doesn't that make sense?
Nobody wants the return of slavery. That's why it isn't on the table.

In contrast, the republicans never liked, wanted, or voted for Obamacare. That's why they don't want to fund it.

You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#92064 Oct 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Remind you of anyone? Obama spent the first four years of his failed presidency blaming Bush. He's spent his fifth year blaming House Republicans. Amazing how Democrats hold the White House and the Senate, yet aren't responsible for anything.
FAILED PRESIDENCY? WTF?...Home and Auto sales way up...Recovered Economy...No New Ground Wars...Bin Laden Dead...Unemployment down....Retail Sales Up...Consumer Confidence Up...Affordable Care Act approved and on course....Manufacturing Up....It's alllll gooood.....That's whats killing you!....

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#92065 Oct 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
Obama is intent on dividing this country. First, he tried to start a class war. Remember the 99%ers? He failed.
Then he tried to start a race war. He went on national TV and admitted he hates white people. He failed.
Now he's trying to use partisan. "It's them against us" is his mantra.
Sorry Sir....I had no idea, you were far gone....that explain's alot....

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92066 Oct 1, 2013
I said it was interesting, Sub. I didn't say it was right or wrong. Interesting. But, b/c you seem to care where it came from, I went on factcheck.org .

I thought this was interesting:
From Politico: "And not all of the alleged dangers to businesses hold up to scrutiny. Is Obamacare a “job killer,” as many Republicans charge? Economists say it’s just not showing that kind of impact — at least so far. And is it going to cause employers everywhere to slash their workers’ benefits? Even UPS, which got national attention for cutting its health coverage for spouses who can get their coverage elsewhere, now says it can’t really blame Obamacare for that one.
“I wouldn’t characterize it as,‘We did this because of Obamacare,’” UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross told POLITICO — even though its memo to employees was full of references to the law."

From Factcheck: Claim: The law is a job-killer.

FactCheck.org says: Overblown.
It’s true nonpartisan economic analyses have estimated a “small” loss of mainly low-wage jobs because of the law. But as one expert told us, there hasn’t been much analysis of this impact of the law because, he believes, economists think the impact will be minimal. Still, Republicans have continued to push the idea that the law will have a significant effect on jobs.

This claim made our “Whoppers of 2011” list, and it has continued to be pushed in various forms — with the latest being the claims about part-time work. Mainly, the “job-killer” claims severely distort a 2010 nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that said the law would have a “small” impact on jobs. And that’s mainly from workers choosing to work less. For instance, some might work fewer hours if they receive subsidies to help them buy insurance, or those close to retirement may retire early, with some reassurance that they can buy insurance on their own.

I find this interesting b/c I keep hearing how it is going to impact jobs in a serious, negative way yet that isn't what really is expected.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#92067 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That kind of thinking will get you run over in politics. It's how the game is played.
Perhaps that's the problem.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92068 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's something more impartial from CNN that says 9 out of 14 economists disagree with the premise of your article.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/30/news/economy/...
You should read the whole article. Down further that very same article says:

"But there is also reason to believe the job killing criticism could be overblown.

As of 2010, 97% of small businesses had fewer than 50 employees, according to the U.S. Census. That means Obamacare's employer mandate applies only to 3% of America's small businesses. Of companies with more than 50 workers, 96% already offer health plans, government data shows.

The ADP jobs report -- one of the largest reports on private employers -- shows that small businesses are still hiring strong. "

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#92069 Oct 1, 2013
I find all this very very very boring.

BOOBIES!
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#92070 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody wants the return of slavery. That's why it isn't on the table.
In contrast, the republicans never liked, wanted, or voted for Obamacare. That's why they don't want to fund it.
You are making an apples to oranges comparison.
Were those oranges apples in 2009 when the ACA passed?

The point isn't whether anyone wants slavery to return. The point is whether every American law can be held hostage by minority opinion.

If you people love the Constitution so much, why don't you follow it?

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92071 Oct 1, 2013
RACE wrote:
I find all this very very very boring.
BOOBIES!
I agree with you. In the interest in making it a bit less boring, this is slightly humorous. Well, actually a bit sad really.

http://gawker.com/kimmel-asks-americans-to-ch...

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92072 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it doesn't achieve anything, then why did Obama already granted a one year delay for businesses by executive order. If they had so many employees, they were required under Obamacare to provide them health insurance or pay a fine. That was to come into effect starting at the first of the year, but Obama pushed it back until 2015.
How can he do this if this is the law of the land!!! I bet Squishy is outraged!
The republicans are simply asking for the same delay for individuals. Funny, the folks who normally scream about big businesses getting special treatment are completely silent on this. As is often the case with partisan hacks (not you P), it matters more who is doing the act verses what the act is.
Had Obama not exempted businesses for one year and republicans made that demand, Squishy and Ferrerman would be screaming about how evil they are and all about big business. Obama does it and you hear <crickets> from them. Too funny.
I believe that is a systems issue in that the computer system is not functional.I didn't understand it to be either a political concession or substantial change. Kudos to the government for wanting to put a tested and functioning system on line rather than something which would draw fire for lack of functionality.There was a 2nd aspect that I don't recall which was delayed for the same reason. If you have other information, please post.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92073 Oct 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
Obama is intent on dividing this country. First, he tried to start a class war. Remember the 99%ers? He failed.
Then he tried to start a race war. He went on national TV and admitted he hates white people. He failed.
Now he's trying to use partisan. "It's them against us" is his mantra.
Why would he want to do that? What's the point?
What would he benefit?

What would the Democratic party benefit?

That's not a rhetorical question

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min flack 1,125,598
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,304
Hanover Park Teen Charged In Weekend Stabbing (Jun '09) 22 min RIP Jahziel 44
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 30 min Frijoles 70,032
Abby 10-22 32 min PEllen 6
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 50 min Belle Sexton 50,609
Abby 10-20 53 min Mister Tonka 21
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]